Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Ricky and Jennifer Derzapf were married in the mid-1990s. They had two sons, B.G.D. and A.J.D., as well as one daughter, J.B.D. Jennifer died of leukemia on June 3, 2001. During the summer months immediately following Jennifer’s death, Connie and Randy Johnson helped Ricky care for the children. Connie is Jennifer’s mother and the children’s grandmother; Randy is Connie’s husband and the children’s step-grandfather. During the first few months, the Johnsons were the children’s primary caregivers. This arrangement was necessary because of Ricky’s work schedule. Initially, Ricky and the Johnsons worked cooperatively on the children’s behalf. Ricky later sought to reassert himself as the children’s primary caregiver. Tension between Ricky and the Johnsons increased. The Johnsons perceived Ricky as emotionally aloof and a negative influence on the children, while Ricky believed that Connie sought to assume the role of mother instead of grandmother, directly undermining his influence and authority over the children. On May 6, 2003, the Johnsons sued for custody, alleging that Ricky endangered the children and significantly impaired their physical health and emotional development, and they obtained a temporary restraining order preventing Ricky from obtaining possession of the children. After a hearing, the trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and returned the children to their father’s conservatorship. The trial court held that the Johnsons lacked standing to obtain custody under Texas Family Code �102.004(a)(1), because there was no evidence that Ricky’s care of the children created serious questions concerning the children’s physical health or welfare. After the Johnsons filed suit, Ricky discontinued their access to the children. According to Ricky, over the next 12 months to 18 months the children began to heal from their depression spurred by their mother’s death and the ongoing tension between the Johnsons and him. Ricky took the children to counseling, and they have since been released from the counselor’s care because of their progress in coping with their depression, as evidenced by their social and academic success in school and by the fact that B.G.D. and A.J.D. are no longer on antidepressant medications. The Johnsons filed a petition for grandparent access on March 10, 2004. On Feb.1, 2006, the trial court signed temporary orders granting the Johnsons visitation on Thanksgiving Day and the first Saturday of each month. On July 7, 2006, the trial court issued amended temporary orders stating in part that the Johnsons had standing and that denying the Johnsons access to the children would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional well-being. Ricky sought mandamus relief. After granting his motion for temporary relief and staying the trial court’s order, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition. HOLDING:The Texas Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its amended temporary orders of July 7, 2006. In 2005, the court noted, the Legislature substantially amended the grandparent access statute, codified at Texas Family Code ��153.432-34. The current statute includes a presumption that a parent acts in his child’s best interest, and it permits biological or adoptive grandparents to obtain court-ordered access to a grandchild only if they show that denial of access will “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.” The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the Johnsons access to Ricky’s children, because Randy, the step-grandfather, was neither a biological nor an adoptive grandparent, while Connie, the grandmother, did not overcome the statutory presumption favoring the children’s father. Moreover, the court stated, while Dr. Mark R. Otis, a psychologist, noted the children’s sadness at being unable to see their grandparents, Otis admitted that these feelings did not rise to the level of a significant emotional impairment. Thus, Connie failed to overcome the presumption that Ricky’s decision to bar access to her and Randy was in the best interest of his children. A court may not lightly interfere with child-rearing decisions made by Ricky a fit parent by all accounts simply because a better decision may have been made, the court stated. OPINION:Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.