Texas Codes
Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002 (2026)
Who Can File
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 156.002. WHO CAN FILE. (a) A party affected by an order may file a suit for modification in the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(b) A person or entity who, at the time of filing, has standing to sue under Chapter 102 may file a suit for modification in the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(c) The sibling of a child who is separated from the child because of the actions of the Department of Family and Protective Services may file a suit for modification requesting access to the child in the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1113 (H.B. 1012), Sec. 26, eff. September 1, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: in the Interest of P.D.M. & K.E.M., 117 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App. 2003).
in the Interest of P.D.M. & K.E.M., 117 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App. 2003). “Upon the death of a managing conservator, a person like Grandmother may file a modification suit when the children and their managing conservator have resided with the person for at least six months ending not more than ninety days prior to the filing of the petition to modify.”
In Re Guardianship of Cem-K., 341 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App. 2011). “denied); Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002. In V.L.K , the court began by noting that “[a]fter a court makes an original custody determination, a party may move to modify that determination.”
Rolle v. Hardy, 527 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. App. 2017). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.002 (b) (West 2014) (“A person or entity who, at the time of filing, has standing to sue under Chapter 102 may file a suit for modification in the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.”
Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 2004). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002. We conclude that the portion of the trial court’s order precluding the appellant from applying to the trial court for overnight visitations or a change in the visitation schedule *757 for two years is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”
Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016). “Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002(a). Only the court that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the child—which is usually the same court that entered the final child-support order—may modify the child-support order.”
Monica Moreno v. Ernesto Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2011). “Moreno’s assertion that the petitioners lack standing is incorrect. Because they were granted visitation rights in the 2002 divorce decree as intervenors, the petitioners have standing as a party “affected by” the 2002 order that they sought to modify.”
In Re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App. 2008). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(b) (Vernon 2002).”
In Re Salgado, 53 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(b)(Vernon 1996).”
in Re: David E. Martin, 523 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App. 2017). “of or access to a child. Tex, Fam. Code Ann. § .156.”
Hudson v. Markum, 931 S.W.2d 336 (Tex. App. 1996). “08(a) (Vernon 1986) (current version at Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002 (Vernon 1996)).”
in Re Debra Shifflet & George Shifflet, 462 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2015). “They also argued that the parental presumption does not apply in a modification action. Both parties agree that Section 156.”
in the Interest of S.A.M., P.R.M., & S.A.M., 321 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App. 2010). “” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(a) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002(a) — 19 cases
Ochsner v. Ochsner, 517 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. 2016). “Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002(a). Only the court that has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the child—which is usually the same court that entered the final child-support order—may modify the child-support order.”
Monica Moreno v. Ernesto Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2011). “Moreno’s assertion that the petitioners lack standing is incorrect. Because they were granted visitation rights in the 2002 divorce decree as intervenors, the petitioners have standing as a party “affected by” the 2002 order that they sought to modify.”
in the Interest of S.A.M., P.R.M., & S.A.M., 321 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App. 2010). “” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(a) (Vernon Supp.”
in the Interest of A.J.L. & E.M.L., 108 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App. 2003).
in the Interest of P.D.M. & K.E.M., 117 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App. 2003). “Upon the death of a managing conservator, a person like Grandmother may file a modification suit when the children and their managing conservator have resided with the person for at least six months ending not more than ninety days prior to the filing of the petition to modify.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002(b) — 19 cases
in the Interest of P.D.M. & K.E.M., 117 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App. 2003). “Upon the death of a managing conservator, a person like Grandmother may file a modification suit when the children and their managing conservator have resided with the person for at least six months ending not more than ninety days prior to the filing of the petition to modify.”
In Re Vogel, 261 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App. 2008). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(b) (Vernon 2002).”
In Re Salgado, 53 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002(b)(Vernon 1996).”
In Re Guardianship of Cem-K., 341 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App. 2011). “denied); Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.002. In V.L.K , the court began by noting that “[a]fter a court makes an original custody determination, a party may move to modify that determination.”
In the Interest of M.P.B., 257 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App. 2008).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.002(c) — 1 case
In Re Anna McCutcheon, Relator v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2023).
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.