Opinion
Nos. 14-05-00410-CV, 14-06-00102-CV
Opinion filed July 17, 2007.
On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause Numbers 00CV114743 05CV142097.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, ANDERSON, and HUDSON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this consolidated appeal, we address multiple issues arising out of the efforts by two, unrelated couples to adopt H. B. N. S., a minor child. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
H. B. N. S. was born on July 23, 1998. For reasons not relevant to this appeal, the birth mother, Christina Smith, allowed H. B. N. S. to go home from the hospital with appellants, Dwight and Paula Bolton (the "Boltons"). Smith had originally met Paula Bolton when Paula Bolton handled a foreclosure for Smith's father. While the Boltons agreed to take H. B. N. S. home, they did not do so with the intention of eventually adopting her.
In the fall of 1998, Danielle Schultz started babysitting H. B. N. S. for the Boltons. The Boltons, through their church, sought out Danielle as a babysitter. At that time, Danielle was a teenager living with her parents and she brought H. B. N. S. to her parents' home. Danielle's parents are appellees, David and Deborah Schultz (the "Schultzes"). H. B. N. S.'s initial stay with the Schultzes, which was supposed to last a single night, extended to several days. From that start, H. B. N. S. spent large amounts of time with the Schultzes and they came to consider her a member of the family. The Schultzes purchased the equipment to care for H. B. N. S. in their home. In addition, as H. B. N. S. got older, she was given her own room at the Schultzes' home as well as at their lake house. The Schultzes provided H. B. N. S. with food and clothing as well as medical and dental care. H. B. N. S. participated in holiday and other special celebrations with the Schultzes and traveled extensively with them on family vacations.
In 2000, when H. B. N. S. was almost two years old, Smith executed a Revocable Mother's Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights designating the Boltons as the Managing Conservators of H. B. N. S. The Boltons then filed an Original Petition for Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship and Adoption in July 2000. During the summer of 2003 the Boltons attempted to finalize their adoption of H. B. N. S., but the court expressed concerns about a pending criminal charge against Dwight Bolton and declined to go forward with the adoption at that time.
Dwight Bolton has prior convictions for unlawful carrying of a weapon (December 5, 1983); possession of marijuana with the intent to sell (November 27, 1991); and for retaliation (May 21, 1992). During the course of the litigation, Mr. Bolton admitted to having physical confrontations with Paula Bolton's teenaged sons, the most serious of which involved Mr. Bolton picking Paula Bolton's thirteen year old son up by the neck and pinning him to the wall with his feet barely touching the floor. Mr. Bolton also testified he believed this was an appropriate method to deal with a thirteen year old boy. Mr. Bolton also admitted to an incident where he assaulted a husband and wife following an automobile accident. Finally, Mr. Bolton admitted that he is angry all the time and it is possible that, when he is angry, be becomes assaultive. Mr. Bolton's Veterans' Administration medical records from July 2003, reveal that he used marijuana daily, had problems with chronic anger, and tried to choke Paula Bolton on three separate occasions.
Paula Bolton went to prison when she was eighteen for violating the provisions of her probation following her March 1981 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Ms. Bolton admitted she pled guilty to a charge of aggravated solicitation of prostitution. In July 2004, Ms. Bolton was convicted of theft.
As they learned more about the Boltons, the Schultzes became concerned about the stability of the Boltons' home and decided to take legal action regarding H. B. N. S. On August 22, 2003 the Schultzes filed two original proceedings respecting H. B. N. S. The first suit, Cause No. 03-CV-131572, was an Original Petition for Termination and Adoption of a Child. In the second action, Cause No. 03-CV-131574, titled Original Petition in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, the Schultzes sought primary conservatorship of H. B. N. S. The Boltons answered the conservatorship suit and challenged the Schultzes' standing. The Boltons also answered the termination suit and requested that the court abate the case until the issue of the Schultzes' standing was addressed. In response, the Schultzes filed a motion to consolidate all of the cases related to H. B. N. S.
On October 14, 2003 the trial court commenced a hearing to address the Schultzes' request to consolidate the three cases and the Boltons' challenge to the Schultzes' standing. The trial court heard testimony on both October 14, 2003 and October 30, 2003. On October 30, 2003 the Schultzes filed with the trial court a petition in intervention seeking termination and adoption of H. B. N. S. After the hearing, the trial court dismissed the Schultzes' two original proceedings, Cause Numbers 03-CV-131574 and 03-CV131571, but found the Schultzes had standing to intervene in the Boltons' adoption suit to seek managing conservatorship of H. B. N. S. On November 25, 2003, the trial court entered an interim order terminating the parental rights of H. B. N. S.'s birth parents.
On November 19, 2004, the Schultzes filed an Intervenors' Amended Petition and Original Answer in which they asked the trial court to (1) finalize its interim order terminating the parental rights of H. B. N. S.'s birth parents, (2) deny the Boltons' request to adopt H. B. N. S., and (3) name the Schultzes as the Sole Managing Conservators of H. B. N. S.
Following another unsuccessful attempt by the Boltons to have the Schultzes' intervention dismissed based on lack of standing, trial of the Boltons' requested termination and adoption suit, as well as the Schultzes' intervention, commenced on November 29, 2004. On December 28, 2004, the trial court entered an Order In Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship in which it (1) confirmed the interim order terminating the parental rights of H. B. N. S.'s birth parents, (2) denied the Bolton's request to adopt H. B. N. S., and (3) appointed the Schultzes as H. B. N. S.'s Sole Managing Conservators and the Boltons as her Possessory Conservators.
On April 7, 2005 the Schultzes filed suit for the adoption of H. B. N. S. At the time the Schultzes filed suit to adopt, H. B. N. S. had lived continuously in the Schultzes' home for more than three months. Prior to the trial of the Schultzes' adoption suit, the Boltons filed several motions. A Motion to Deny Relief in Suit to Adopt was contained in the Boltons' Original Answer. In this motion, the Boltons challenged the Schultzes' standing to file a suit to adopt H. B. N. S. The second motion filed by the Boltons was a Motion to Abate or Stay the Case Pending Appellate Review of the trial court's December 28, 2004 order. Finally, the Boltons filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the legal theory of either res judicata or collateral estoppel. The trial court denied each of these motions and the adoption suit went to trial on November 9, 2005.
The only evidence from the adoption trial found in the appellate record consists of three reports filed by social workers Helen Kerlick and Denise Fenwick. These reports contained the social workers' findings that H. B. N. S. appeared to be tightly bonded to the Schultz family and, based upon their investigation, they highly recommended that the Schultzes be approved to adopt H. B. N. S. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Schultzes' request to adopt H. B. N. S. was granted and the trial court signed a Decree of Adoption on December 12, 2005. As part of that decree, the trial court found that any prior orders designating the Boltons as possessory conservators of H. B. N. S. were no longer in her best interest and terminated all provisions granting the Boltons possession and access to H. B. N. S.
The Boltons appealed the December 28, 2004 order in appellate cause number 14-05-00410-CV. The Boltons appealed the December 12, 2005 order in appellate cause number 14-06-00102-CV. We subsequently consolidated the Boltons' appeals.
While the Boltons have appealed the trial court's December 28, 2004 order, they have not raised any issues on appeal contesting the trial court's denial of their request to adopt H. B. N. S. Instead, the Boltons have addressed their appeal exclusively at the trial court's handling of the Schultzes' intervention and its division of responsibilities in the December 28, 2004 final order.
DISCUSSION
In appellate cause number 14-05-00410-CV, the Boltons challenge the trial court's handling of the Schultzes' intervention into the Boltons' termination and adoption suit as well as the December 28, 2004 order defining the rights and duties of the individual conservators. The Boltons also raise three issues in appellate cause number 14-06-00102-CV. In their second appeal, the Boltons initially argue the trial court erred when it denied their motion to dismiss or abate the Schultzes' adoption suit pending the outcome of their appeal in 14-05-00410-CV. Next, the Boltons contend the Schultzes did not have standing to adopt H. B. N. S. Finally, the Boltons assert the Schultzes are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from adopting H. B. N. S. We turn first to the Boltons' issues raised in cause number 14-05-00410-CV.
In their appellants' brief in cause number 14-05-00410-CV, the Boltons raise three issues. In addition, in the argument and authorities section of their brief, the Boltons pose eight questions, some of which are related to one of the original three issues, while two raise entirely new points not found in the original issues. Where the Boltons' issues and questions intersect, we address them together. Accordingly, under the Boltons' first issue, we also address their fourth and fifth questions. Within the Boltons' second issue, we address their first, second, and third questions. We handle the Boltons' third issue together with their eighth question. Finally, we address the Boltons' sixth and seventh questions separately.
I. Cause Number 14-05-00410-CV
A. The Boltons Lack Standing to Question Service on Other Parties.
In their first issue, the Boltons challenge the trial court's December 28, 2004 order based on the Boltons' view the Schultzes' intervention was never perfected because they did not serve H. B. N. S.'s birth parents. However, the Boltons do not have standing to challenge the validity of service on other parties to a suit. See Southwest Const. Receivables, Ltd. v. Regions Bank, 162 S.W.3d 859, 864 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, pet. denied) ("Generally, only the entity that has not been properly served has standing to challenge the lack of due process."); see also In re D. C., 128 S.W.3d 707, 713 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (holding mother did not have standing on appeal to raise issue concerning service by publication on unknown biological father who did not appeal). As the Boltons do not have standing to challenge the validity of service on H. B. N. S.'s birth parents, we overrule their first issue, as well as their fourth and fifth questions.
B. The Schultzes Had Standing to Intervene in the Boltons' Pending Termination and Adoption Suit
In their second issue, as well as questions one, two, and three, the Boltons argue the trial court abused its discretion when it found the Schultzes had standing to intervene in the Boltons' termination and adoption suit. We disagree.
1. The Standard of Review
In termination cases, the trial court enjoys discretion when deciding a motion to strike an intervention. In re A. M., 60 S.W.3d 166, 168 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). To constitute an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision must be arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.2. Standing to Intervene is Measured at the Time the Intervention is Filed
Initially, in question number one, the Boltons contend the date on which the Schultzes' standing to intervene must be judged is not the date the Schultzes filed their intervention, but the date the Boltons originally filed their suit. In support of their contention, the Boltons cite In re Garcia, 944 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no writ). In Garcia, the father challenged the standing of non-parents who brought an original suit seeking custody of his child. Id. at 726. The non-parents had asserted standing based on section 102.003(9) of the Texas Family Code, which permitted an original suit by persons who had actual care, custody, and control of a child for six months preceding the filing of the suit. Id. The court in Garcia determined that the six-month period, and therefore the issue of the non-parents' standing, was to be determined as of the date the original suit was filed. Id. at 727. The Boltons' reliance on Garcia is misplaced as Garcia did not involve an intervention but the filing of an original lawsuit in which standing was asserted based on an entirely different statute from the statute at issue here.
In their petition in intervention, the Schultzes, because of their substantial past contact with H. B. N. S., asserted they had standing to intervene pursuant to section 102.004(b) of the Texas Family Code. Under that statute, the trial court had discretion to permit the Schultzes' intervention if they could establish their substantial past contact with the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(b) (Vernon 2002). That determination is to be made at the point in time when the Schultzes filed their petition in intervention. See In re A. M., 60 S.W.3d at 169 (analyzing the intervenors' contacts with the child as of the time they filed their petition in intervention).
The Boltons also challenge the evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the Schultzes had substantial past contact with H. B. N. S. sufficient to allow them to intervene in the Boltons' original termination and adoption suit. The trial court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing to address the question of the Schultzes' standing to intervene, among other issues. The evidence introduced during this hearing established that the Schultzes had a close relationship with H. B. N. S. that commenced in the fall of 1998 and continued up through the time of the evidentiary hearing. The evidence also established that the Boltons initiated this relationship and encouraged its continued development. The evidence demonstrates that the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied the Boltons' motion to dismiss the Schultzes' intervention in the Boltons' termination and adoption suit based on their substantive past contact with H. B. N. S.
This evidence includes (1) testimony that the Schultzes provided ongoing care for H. B. N. S. in their home for extensive and repeated periods of time beginning in the fall of 1998 and have treated her as a member of their family; (2) H. B. N. S. accompanied the Schultzes on numerous family vacations; (3) H. B. N. S. participated in Schultz family celebrations of birthdays and holidays; (4) H. B. N. S. had her own rooms at the Schultzes' home and lake house; and (5) the Schultzes took H. B. N. S. to school, were on the list of people authorized to pick her up from school, and even met with H. B. N. S.'s teachers regarding her education.
3. The Requirements to Intervene Are More Relaxed Than The Requirements to File an Original Suit
In questions two and three, the Boltons argue that since the requirements to intervene in a termination and adoption suit are the same as the requirements to institute an original suit and since the trial court found that the Schultzes did not have standing to file their original lawsuits regarding H. B. N. S., they cannot establish their standing to intervene in the Boltons' termination and adoption suit. We disagree with each of the Boltons' contentions.
Initially, intervening and filing an original suit are distinct legal actions. In re A. M., 60 S.W.3d at 168. Standing to intervene in a suit and filing an original suit are not necessarily the same. Id. Here, the Schultzes assert they had standing to intervene in the Boltons' original suit based on their substantial past contact with H. B. N. S., as authorized by section 102.004(b) of the Texas Family Code. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(b). In statutory standing cases, such as this one, the analysis is a straight statutory construction of the relevant statute to determine upon whom the Texas legislature conferred standing and whether the claimant in question falls in that category.In re Sullivan, 157 S.W.3d 911, 915 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). As addressed above in section B(2), the evidence demonstrated the Schultzes had substantial past contact with H. B. N. S. and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Schultzes had standing, pursuant to section 102.004(b) of the Texas Family Code, to intervene in the Boltons' termination and adoption suit.
The Boltons' citation to Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. 1982), and Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Oper. Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990), do not change this result. In Mendez, the Texas Supreme Court, construing section 11.03 of the Texas Family Code, the predecessor to the current section 102.004, held that foster parents had no justiciable interest and therefore no standing to intervene in a termination suit. Mendez, 626 S.W.2d at 500. However, the Mendez case was decided before section 11.03 of the Texas Family Code was amended to permit a person with substantial past contact with a child, such as the Schultzes, to bring a termination and adoption suit and therefore has no precedential value here. Rodarte v. Cox, 828 S.W.2d 65, 70 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1991, writ den.). Guaranty addresses common law intervention pursuant to Rule 60 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and is not applicable to this case. Guaranty, 793 S.W.2d at 657.
As the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Boltons' motion to dismiss the Schultzes' intervention, we overrule the Boltons' second issue, as well as their first, second, and third questions.
C. The Bolton's Third Issue, Arguing The Trial Court's Final Order is Invalid Because it Does Not Adequately Define the Rights and Duties of the Managing and Possessory Conservators, is Moot
In their third issue, as well as their eighth question, the Bolton's contend the trial court's December 28, 2004 order improperly designated both David and Deborah Schultz as sole managing conservators of H. B. N. S. However, since we affirm the trial court's December 12, 2005 Decree of Adoption granting the Schultzes' request to adopt H. B. N. S., this issue, challenging the trial court's December 28, 2004 designation of both David and Deborah Schultz as sole managing conservator of H. B. N. S., is moot. Accordingly, we overrule the Boltons' third issue and eighth question.
D. The Schultzes' Intervention Was Not Barred by The Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
In their sixth question, the Boltons assert the Schultzes were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from intervening in the Boltons' termination and adoption lawsuit. The Boltons base their argument on the trial court's dismissal, based on lack of standing, of the Schultzes' Original Petition for Termination and Adoption and Original Petition in Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship. We disagree.
Res judicata precludes re-litigation of claims that have been finally adjudicated, or that arise out of the same subject matter and could have been litigated in a prior action. Shirvanian v. Defrates, 161 S.W.3d 102, 111 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). Res judicata requires proof of the following elements: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of the parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action. Id. A prior final judgment on the merits is lacking here. A decision concerning whether a party has standing is not a decision deciding the merits of a case. In re C. M. C., 192 S.W.3d 866, 869-70 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.). Dismissal, as happened here to the Schultzes' two original lawsuits, is the appropriate disposition when a party lacks standing; it is not a decision on the merits. Id. at 870. As there was no final disposition on the merits of the Schultzes' original lawsuits, they are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from intervening in the Boltons' termination and adoption lawsuit.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel is used to prevent a party from re-litigating an issue that it previously litigated and lost. James v. City of Houston, 138 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). To successfully invoke collateral estoppel, a party must establish the following elements: (1) the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first action. Id. Here, there was no full and fair litigation of the facts sought to be litigated in the second action (the Schultzes' intervention in the Boltons' termination and adoption suit) in the first action (the Schultzes' two original lawsuits). In the first action, the issue litigated was the Schultzes' standing to file two original lawsuits. In the second action, the issue litigated was the Schultzes' standing to intervene in a lawsuit already filed pursuant to section 102.004(b) of the Texas Family Code. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.004(b). As addressed above in section B(3), the standing requirements to file an original lawsuit and the requirements to intervene in an existing lawsuit are not the same. Because there was no prior full and fair litigation of the facts sought to be litigated in the second action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply. We overrule the Boltons' sixth question.
E. The Boltons' Constitutional Rights Were Not Violated by the Trial Court's Appointment of the Schultzes as Sole Managing Conservator of H. B. N. S.
In their seventh question, the Boltons contend the trial court's finding, pursuant to section 153.374(b) of the Texas Family Code, that Christina Smith's designation of the Boltons as H. B. N. S.'s managing conservators was against H. B. N. S.'s best interest, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution as it does not recognize the constitutionally protected presumption in favor of the birth parent's choice. In support of their argument, the Boltons cite the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Troxel v. Granville. 530 U. S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed.2d 49 (2000).
To the extent question seven can be construed as arguing the trial court's decision violated any federal and state constitutional protections the Boltons are entitled to as "parents" of H. B. N. S., that argument is based on a false premise. The Boltons are not parents as defined by the Texas Family Code. A parent is defined as a child's mother, presumed father, legally determined father, adjudicated father, acknowledged father, or adopted mother or father. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 101.024(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The Boltons do not fall into any of these categories and therefore are not entitled to the constitutional protections afforded parents. In addition, to the extent question seven can be interpreted as seeking to assert any constitutional protections guaranteed Christina Smith, the Boltons do not have standing to assert rights she herself has chosen not to pursue. See In re D. C., 128 S.W.3d 707, 713 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (holding mother had no standing on appeal to raise issue concerning service of process on unknown biological father who did not appeal).
The Boltons misapply the Troxel case. In Troxel, paternal grandparents, following the death of their grandchildren's father, filed suit, pursuant to a Washington statute, to obtain increased court ordered visitation with their grandchildren. Id., 530 U. S. at 60-61, 120 S.Ct. at 2057-58. The mother believed the amount of visitation sought by the grandparents was excessive. Id. The Supreme Court held that the statute providing: (1) that any person may petition a court for visitation at any time; and (2) that a court may order visitation rights for any person when it finds visitation may be in the best interest of the child; violated the substantive due process rights of the mother. Id., 530 U.S. at 67, 120 S.Ct. at 2060-61. The Supreme Court held the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad as it gave the state the power to order visitation rights for a third party without any deference to a parent's decision as to whether that visitation would not be in the child's best interest. Id. The Supreme Court went on to state that the trial court's order was not founded on any special factors that might justify the State's interference with the parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her children. Id., 530 U.S. at 68, 120 S.Ct. at 2061. The Supreme Court noted there was no allegation or finding that the surviving parent was unfit. Id. Finally, the Supreme Court stated: "so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children ( i.e. is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children." Id., 530 U.S. at 68-69, 120 S.Ct. at 2061. Troxel prohibits state interference with a parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her children. The Supreme Court's decision in Troxel does not extend such constitutional protection to the situation found here, where the birth parent relinquishes her parental rights, designates a family as her preference for adopting the child, and that family initiates a lawsuit to terminate the birth parents' rights and adopt the child. Because the birth parent relinquished her rights, this case involves exactly those special factors the Supreme Court noted were missing in Troxel, thus no improper state interference occurred.
As mandated by statute, the best interest of the child is the court's primary consideration in determining issues of conservatorship and access. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.002 (Vernon 2002). The United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized that the best interest of the child is a proper standard for resolving disputes between parents on custody issues. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 303-04, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 1448,123 L. Ed.2d 1 (1993). While this is not a suit between parents, the trial court was still statutorily charged with making a ruling that was in the best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.374(b). In addition, Texas courts have repeatedly recognized that the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal or state constitutional principles. In re J. R. D., 169 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied) (holding best interest of the child standard does not infringe father's fundamental constitutional right to parent his children); In re R. D. Y., 51 S.W.3d 314, 324 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (mother was not denied due process of law or equal protection of law based on the court's finding that the child's best interest weighed against the mother receiving overnight visitation with child); In re H. D. O., 580 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1979, no writ) (holding best interest of the child standard does not violate the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and does not violate Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution). As the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal or state constitutional protections, we overrule the Boltons' seventh question.
II. Cause Number 14-06-00102-CV
A. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When it Denied the Boltons' Motion to Dismiss or Abate the Schultzes' Adoption Lawsuit
On April 7, 2005 the Schultzes filed an Original Petition for Adoption. Soon thereafter, the Boltons filed two identical motions to dismiss or abate the adoption lawsuit pending the outcome of their appeal of the trial court's previous Termination and Custody Order. The trial court denied those motions. In their first issue in this appeal from the trial court's adoption decree, the Boltons claim the trial court erred when it denied their motions to dismiss or abate as this court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the order of termination. We disagree.
An appeal from a final order rendered in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, when allowed by law, shall be as in other civil cases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(a). An appeal from a final order, with or without a supercedeas bond, does not suspend the final order unless the trial court rendering the final order, orders the suspension. Id. § 109.002(c); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(4). We review a trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. In re S. A., No 14-98-00586-CV, 1999 WL 397890, at * 4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] June 10, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Wright v. Wright, 867 S.W.2d 807, 817 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, writ denied); Morris v. Morris, 654 S.W.2d 789, 790-91 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1983, no writ). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to any guiding rules and principles. In re E. L. T., 93 S.W.3d 372, 375 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
The entire record on appeal relevant to this issue consists exclusively of the two identical motions filed by the Boltons. No evidence is attached to the Boltons' motions. The only argument raised by the Boltons in their motions repeats of their argument the Schultzes did not have standing to intervene in the Boltons' termination and adoption lawsuit. Based on this record, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the Boltons' motions. We overrule the Boltons' first issue.
B. The Schultzes Had Standing to Initiate a Suit to Adopt H. B. N. S.
In their second issue in this appeal, the Boltons contend the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Schultzes did not have standing to adopt H. B. N. S. We once again disagree.
Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). Standing is implicit in the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction. M. D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Tex. 2001). Standing focuses on who may bring an action. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 851 (Tex. 2000). Standing may be predicated on either statutory or common law authority. Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844, 850 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). A party's standing to pursue and maintain a cause of action is a question of law. Coons-Andersen v. Andersen, 104 S.W.3d 630, 634 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). We review the question of standing de novo. Id. In our review, we take the factual allegations in the petition as true and construe them in favor of the pleader. Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446. In addition to the pleadings, we may also consider relevant evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000).
In their petition, the Schultzes asserted they had standing to adopt H. B. N. S. pursuant to section 102.005(3) of the Texas Family Code. This section provides that an adult who has had actual possession and control of the child for not less than two months during the three-month period proceeding the filing of the petition, has standing to request adoption. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.005(3) (Vernon 2002). Within their petition, the Schultzes stated they would have had possession of H. B. N. S. for at least six months by the time the trial court heard their request to adopt. There is no reporter's record in this appeal. However, the clerk's record contains the following reports: (1) Prescreening Adoptive Home Study; (2) Post Placement Report to the Court; and (3) the Updated Post Placement Report to the Court. Helen Kerlick and Denise Fenwick, the social workers handling the adoption, signed these reports. Each of these reports establishes that H. B. N. S. has resided in the Schultzes' home since December 2004. The suit for adoption was filed on April 7, 2005. As H. B. N. S. had resided with the Schultzes for at least two months in the three months prior to the filing of the adoption suit, the Schultzes had standing to adopt H. B. N. S. See id. We overrule the Boltons' second issue in this appeal.
C. The Schultzes' Suit to Adopt H. B. N. S. Is Not Barred by Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel
In their third and final issue in this appeal, the Boltons argue the Schultzes' April 2005 suit to adopt H. B. N. S. is barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel. Neither doctrine bars the Schultzes' suit.
As explained above in section D of part I of this opinion, res judicata precludes re-litigation of claims that have been finally adjudicated or that arise out of the same subject matter and could have been litigated in a prior action. Shirvanian, 161 S.W.3d at 111. One of the elements of res judicata is proof of a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Id. A prior final judgment on the merits is lacking here. A decision concerning whether a party has standing is not a decision deciding the merits of a case. In re C. M. C., 192 S.W.3d at 870. Dismissal, as happened here to the Schultzes' original adoption lawsuit, Cause No. 03BCVB131572, is the appropriate disposition when a party lacks standing. Id. A dismissal based on lack of standing is not a decision on the merits. Id. As there was no final judgment on the merits of the Schultzes' original adoption lawsuit, they were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from filing their April 2005 suit seeking to adopt H. B. N. S.
As previously discussed, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is used to prevent a party from re-litigating an issue that it previously litigated and lost. James, 138 S.W.3d at 437. To successfully invoke collateral estoppel, the first element a party must establish is that the facts sought to be litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action. Id. The Boltons' collateral estoppel argument fails because the facts sought to be litigated in the Schulzes' April 2005 adoption suit are not the same facts litigated in the Schultzes' original adoption suit filed in August 2003. In the first adoption suit, the issue litigated was the Schultzes' standing to initiate a suit to adopt H. B. N. S. in August 2003, while in the second adoption suit, the issue litigated was the Schultzes' standing to initiate a suit to adopt H. B. N. S. in April 2005. As the Boltons conceded during oral argument, a party's standing can change over time, thus, there was no prior full and fair litigation of the facts supporting the Schultzes' standing to initiate the April 2005 adoption suit and the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply. As neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel bar the Schultzes' April 2005 adoption suit, we overrule the Boltons' third issue.
In the August 2003 suit, the Schultzes alleged they had standing to adopt H.B.N.S. under section 102.005(4) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.005 (4) of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.005 (4) (standing based on substantial past contact with the child). In April 2005, the Schultzes based their standing to adopt H.B.N.S. on section 102.005(3) of the Texas Family Code. See id. (Standing based on actual possession and control of the child for not less than two months during the three month period preceding the filing of the petition).
CONCLUSION
Having overruled all of the Boltons' issues and questions in both appeals, we affirm the trial court's December 28, 2004 Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship and December 12, 2005 Decree of Adoption.