ROCKWALL, TX — A lengthy legal dispute concerning the custody of a child known as R.D.E. has reached its conclusion this week, as the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas upheld a lower court's decision to designate a non-parent as the primary conservator. This case underscores the significant legal challenges faced by parents who voluntarily relinquish custody of their children for extended periods.
A History of Displacement
The saga began shortly after R.D.E. was born in August 2015, following the death of her father. By April 2017, R.D.E.'s mother, referred to as "Mother," sought assistance from an acquaintance, known as "Appellee," for childcare. Initially, the arrangement involved the child moving back and forth between Texas and the Appellee's residence in Iowa, but this became more permanent in 2018.
In December 2018, Mother signed a "Consent by Mother" document, granting guardianship to the Appellee in an Iowa court. She testified that this decision was influenced by the involvement of Child Protective Services (CPS) in her life due to domestic violence from another child's father, and she believed it was the only way to ensure R.D.E.'s access to education.
In 2020, the Appellee relocated back to Texas, domesticating the guardianship in Rockwall County.
The Fight for Custody
The legal conflict intensified in February 2022 when the Appellee filed a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) to establish a formal possession schedule. Tensions escalated in November 2022, when Mother attempted to retrieve R.D.E. from the home of the child's biological aunt. Mother alleged that the aunt answered the door with a gun and that the environment was unsuitable, prompting her to take R.D.E. and keep her for several weeks before the Appellee was able to retrieve the child from school.
During the bench trial, conflicting testimonies regarding Mother's stability were presented:
Visitation Issues:
Appellee testified that Mother missed "just about every visit" over the six months leading up to the trial.
Financial Instability:
Evidence indicated that Mother changed jobs multiple times in 2023 and experienced periods of unemployment and homelessness.
Concerns for the Child:
Appellee reported that R.D.E. returned from visits with Mother "argumentative and angry," and on one occasion, brought home a bottle of melatonin that Mother had provided without prior consultation.
The Court's Ruling
On June 3, 2024, the trial court issued an order designating both Mother and the Appellee as Joint Managing Conservators. However, the court granted the Appellee the exclusive rights to determine the child's primary residence and make all medical decisions.
Mother appealed the ruling, asserting that as the biological parent, she should be the sole managing conservator.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that the "parental presumption"—the legal principle that a parent is typically the best caretaker for a child—had been successfully rebutted. The court stated:
"Mother voluntarily relinquished actual care, control and possession of the child to [Appellee], a nonparent, for a period exceeding one year."
The appellate court also upheld the trial court's decision to deviate from the standard possession schedule, citing Mother's inconsistent visitation history, lack of transportation, and the extended periods during which she did not exercise custody over R.D.E.
With the appeal overruled, the 2024 order remains in effect, keeping R.D.E. in the primary care of the non-parent who has raised her for a significant portion of her life.
