Sec. 102.004. STANDING FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES AND OTHER PERSONS. (a) In addition to the general standing to file suit provided by Section 102.003, a grandparent, or another relative of the child related within the fourth degree by consanguinity, may file an original suit requesting managing conservatorship if there is satisfactory proof to the court that:
(1) the order requested is necessary because the child's present circumstances would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development; or
(2) both parents, the surviving parent, or the managing conservator or custodian either filed the petition or consented to the suit.
(b) An original suit requesting possessory conservatorship may not be filed by a grandparent or other relative or person. However, a grandparent or other relative or person may intervene in a pending suit under Subsection (b-1) or (b-2), as applicable.
(b-1) A grandparent or other relative of the child within the fourth degree of consanguinity may intervene in a pending suit filed by a person authorized to do so under this chapter if there is satisfactory proof to the court that 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.
(b-2) The court may grant a person, other than a grandparent or other relative of the child within the fourth degree of consanguinity, subject to the requirements of Subsection (b-3) if applicable, deemed by the court to have had substantial past contact with the child leave to intervene in a pending suit filed by a person authorized to do so under this chapter if there is satisfactory proof to the court that 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. The court may not grant a person leave to intervene under this subsection unless each parent consents to the intervention.
(b-3) A foster parent, relative, or designated caregiver may only be granted leave to intervene under Subsection (b-2) if the foster parent, relative, or designated caregiver would have standing to file an original suit as provided by Section 102.003(a)(11).
(c) Possession of or access to a child by a grandparent is governed by the standards established by Chapter 153.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1048, Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 916 (H.B. 260), Sec. 3, eff. June 18, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1406 (S.B. 758), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 341 (H.B. 1410), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2017.
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 402 (H.B. 2350), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2025.
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 402 (H.B. 2350), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
226
cases (
37 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
· cites it 25× “Laws 3877, 3878 (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.”
Rolle v. Hardy, 527 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
· cites it 9× “Hardy moved to dismiss Rolle’s petition for lack of standing, arguing that Rolle “cannot show under Texas Family Code § 102.004 that the children’s present circumstances would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional development.”
in the Interest of N.L.D., a Child, 412 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013).
· cites it 6× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.004 (b) (West 2008); see also Whitworth, 222 S.”
In re Russell, 321 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010).
· cites it 8× “The Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Rendering the February 15, 2007 Temporary Orders and June 3, 2009 Order Granting the Harveys Possession of CAIH Because They Lacked Standing under the Family Code Chassidie contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding…”
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
· cites it 4× “Laws 113 , 282 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Fish v. Fish, 939 A.2d 1040 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “On the one hand, many of the statutes and cases cited by the concurrence describe standards of harm that are no more stringent than the standard articulated in the present case.”
In re Lewis, 357 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011).
· cites it 10× “004 because Jason had consented to their intervention, and they attached a “Consent to Standing Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 102.004” that Jason had signed.”
Blackwell v. Humble, 241 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007).
· cites it 4× “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.004 (b) (West Supp.”
in the Interest of S.M.D., a Child, 329 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010).
· cites it 6× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a)(1). However, when the petition in intervention was filed, S.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(a): 31 cases
In re Russell, 321 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010).
“The Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Rendering the February 15, 2007 Temporary Orders and June 3, 2009 Order Granting the Harveys Possession of CAIH Because They Lacked Standing under the Family Code Chassidie contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding…”
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
“Laws 3877, 3878 (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.”
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
“Laws 113 , 282 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a) (Vernon Supp.”
In re Smith, 260 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(a)(1): 42 cases
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
“Laws 3877, 3878 (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.”
In re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008).
“Laws 113 , 282 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Rolle v. Hardy, 527 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).
“Hardy moved to dismiss Rolle’s petition for lack of standing, arguing that Rolle “cannot show under Texas Family Code § 102.004 that the children’s present circumstances would significantly impair the children’s physical health or emotional development.”
Fish v. Fish, 939 A.2d 1040 (Conn. 2008).
“On the one hand, many of the statutes and cases cited by the concurrence describe standards of harm that are no more stringent than the standard articulated in the present case.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(a)(1)(2): 1 case
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(a)(2): 9 cases
In re Lewis, 357 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011).
“004 because Jason had consented to their intervention, and they attached a “Consent to Standing Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 102.004” that Jason had signed.”
in the Interest of S.M.D., a Child, 329 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a)(1). However, when the petition in intervention was filed, S.”
In re SMD, 329 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010).
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(b): 63 cases
Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
“Laws 3877, 3878 (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 102.004(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004(c): 11 cases
In re HG, 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.