in the Interest of B.R.S. and A.N.S., Children

166 S.W.3d 373, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 4113
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 25, 2005
Docket10-04-00110-CV
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 166 S.W.3d 373 (in the Interest of B.R.S. and A.N.S., Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in the Interest of B.R.S. and A.N.S., Children, 166 S.W.3d 373, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 4113 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinions

OPINION

BILL VANCE, Justice.

Lewis Seward and Carol Seward (Grandparents) sought to modify the parent-child relationship to seek court-ordered access to B.R.S. and A.N.S. Their November 2005 petition was opposed by both their son Jacob Seward and their former daughter-in-law Deanna Seward, who had divorced in October of 2002.

Without hearing evidence on'the merits of the Grandparents’ claim, the trial court found the grandparent visitation statute, sections 153.432 and 153.433 of the Family Code, unconstitutional and dismissed the claim. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 153.432, 153.433 (Vernon 2002). The Grandparents appeal.

The sole issue before us is whether the statute is facially unconstitutional under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). We review the trial court’s finding under an abuse of discretion standard. Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex.1982).

In 2001, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face. Lilley v. Lilley, 43 S.W.3d 703, 712 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.). Other courts of appeals have agreed with that holding.1 In re C.P.J., 129 S.W.3d 573, 578 (TexApp.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied); In re Pensom, 126 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.).

We join those courts in holding that the grandparent access statute is not unconstitutional on its face. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.432, 153.433. Thus, we hold the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim by the Grandparents. See Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d at 451; Lilley, 43 S.W.3d at 712. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal order and remand the cause for further proceedings under the statute.

Chief Justice GRAY dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McKenna v. State
209 S.W.3d 233 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Mike McKenna D/B/A Bondman Bail Bonds v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Durham Transportation Co. v. Beettner
201 S.W.3d 859 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
in the Interest of A.M.W. and A.H.W., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
In Re BRS
166 S.W.3d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 S.W.3d 373, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 4113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-brs-and-ans-children-texapp-2005.