E.G.S.N. was born in 2010, and her parents were killed in a car accident when she was about eight months old; after a jury trial her maternal grandparents (Relators S.G. and D.G.) and her paternal aunt and uncle (Real Parties in Interest S.S.N. and E.S.N.) were all appointed nonparent joint managing conservators, with the aunt and uncle given the right to designate her primary residence.¹ The aunt and uncle adopted her on January 26, 2015, the grandparents remained nonparent joint managing conservators, and a mediated Agreed Order of September 29, 2020 modified the possession schedule.² After the grandparents moved in July 2023 to enforce possession, the adoptive parents petitioned to modify and to remove them as conservators.³ The trial court's temporary orders of October 2, 2024 limit the grandparents to visitation "agreed to between the child and" them, and the grandparents say the court refused to include any way for them to contact the child; they say they lack her phone number and that the adoptive mother has blocked them.⁴ The adoptive parents later amended their petition to drop removal and instead seek a "teenager clause" under which the child must agree to the periods of possession.⁵

This is an original proceeding for writ of mandamus in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship pending in Denton County. The grandparents petitioned the Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth), which denied mandamus without explanation on March 14, 2025, and then petitioned this Court.¹ The Court denied the petition on August 29, 2025, with Justice Young, joined by Justices Lehrmann and Busby, concurring in the denial.²

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus after the Second Court of Appeals denied relief; denied August 29, 2025, with a concurring opinion by Justice Young, joined by Justices Lehrmann and Busby.³

Relators present one issue: in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship, under what circumstances a court may deny nonparent joint managing conservators all possession of and access to a child on temporary orders.¹

Mandamus is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy on appeal, and Relators say temporary orders cannot be appealed.¹ The concurrence calls mandamus an "extraordinary remedy".²

Whether the temporary orders effectively deny the grandparents all possession and access.

Relators (grandparents): Conditioning all possession on the child's agreement while giving no method to contact her delegates the whole schedule to the child and effectively denies possession and access, and such orders are rarely enforceable, as Interest of S.V. observed.¹ A court generally errs in appointing a person a conservator while denying all access, absent a finding that denial is necessary to prevent significant impairment; the adoptive parents conceded the grandparents should remain joint managing conservators by dropping their request to remove them.²

Real Parties in Interest (adoptive parents): The temporary order correctly applied the law and gave the grandparents no less than they were entitled to; the grandparents cannot overcome the fit-parent presumption, which they acknowledged applies, and they offered no evidence of unfitness, so the trial court was not required to grant more.³

The fit-parent presumption.

Relators (grandparents): Because the courts appointed nonparents as managing conservators, the adoptive parents were not entitled to the parental presumption, and the grandparents instead benefit from a presumption that denying them access would significantly impair the child.⁴

Real Parties in Interest (adoptive parents): The grandparents cite no authority that the parents' agreement to the earlier conservatorship irrevocably displaced the fit-parent presumption, and nothing in the prior orders found the parents unfit.⁵

The grandparents argued that no appeal is available from temporary orders, so mandamus is their only remedy, and that the question of when a court may deny nonparent joint managing conservators all possession and access deserves guidance.¹

None

Reasoning

The Court gave no reasons for denying relief; the only writing is Justice Young's concurrence, which is the view of three Justices, not a holding.¹ He wrote that clarity is especially important in orders defining the authority of adults who care for children, that the grandparents "plausibly argue" the court imposed an insurmountable hurdle by conditioning visitation on the child's agreement while giving no way to contact her, and that their petition "is not frivolous".² The adoptive parents did not dispute those facts or explain how the grandparents could visit without a way to contact the child.³

He concurred "primarily" because the final trial was set for September 23, 2025, and would let the trial court reconsider and finalize its orders, so the impending final orders displace the need for mandamus; the grandparents could present evidence at trial and appeal if dissatisfied.⁴ He expressed no view of the merits, noting that a denial of mandamus is not an adjudication or comment on the merits, and wrote that if conditions in future cases are crafted this way, appellate courts, and perhaps this Court should be prepared to review them speedily.⁵

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.⁶

Vote Breakdown

Justice Young concurred in the denial, joined by Justice Lehrmann and Justice Busby.⁷