Opinion
No. 04-16-00258-CV
06-08-2016
IN RE January and Robert HOWELL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Mandamus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-PA-01619, styled In re M.E.R., R.M.R., M.N.R., J.A.R., E.J.R., B.L.R. & B.R., Children, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai presiding. --------
On April 25, 2016, relators, who are foster parents, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order striking their petition to intervene in a suit filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services regarding the placement of several children, including the relators' foster child. The trial court struck the petition to intervene for lack of standing.
Standing to intervene in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship is governed by the Texas Family Code. In re S.M.D., 329 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, orig. proceeding). Under Section 102.003(a)(12), foster parents have standing to intervene if the child involved was placed by the Department in the foster parents' home for at least a twelve month period ending not more than ninety days preceding the date the petition is filed. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 102.003(a)(12) (West Supp. 2015). Here, however, because the child has not been with the relators for at least twelve months, they sought to intervene alleging standing under Section 102.004(b) of the Texas Family Code. Section 102.004(b) allows a trial court to grant a "person deemed by the court to have substantial past contact with a child leave to intervene in a pending suit . . . if there is satisfactory proof to the court that the appointment of a parent as a sole managing conservator or both parents as joint managing conservators would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 102.004(b) (West 2014). The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of proof to establish standing within the parameters of the Family Code. S.M.D., 329 S.W.3d at 12-13. At the hearing on the motion to strike the relators' intervention, no evidence was offered or admitted to satisfy the relators' burden of proof. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court clearly abused its discretion in granting the motion to strike. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus must be denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM