Since the start of 2023, the Family Freedom Project (FFP) has been involved in “IN re NH,” a case marked by its implications for parental rights and government intervention in family matters.
In this case, a non-parent is now battling to take custody of a child from the child’s biological mother. The non-parent asserts that she should be entitled to certain decision making power over the child, even though she is of no biological relation. The dispute in the case is between a biological mother and a former romantic partner (another woman who lived in the home during the relationship) with no biological relation to the child.
At the start of the trial, the child was just four years old. The ex-girlfriend had repeatedly insisted up until this point that the mother was a fit parent, but in 2019, she made the first claim that the mother wasn’t a fit parent.
The mother asserted her rights as the child’s sole biological parent as well as her ability to make all decisions for her child at the final trial in February 2021. At this trial, the non-parent could not present any proof that the mother was in any way unfit. According to the court’s judgment, the mother was to be the primary decision maker involving her child, but the court still gave the ex-girlfriend large amount of court ordered possession time with the child.
The mother appealed, objecting to the idea that she could somehow be a fit parent but not fit enough to decide who her child should spend time with. In July 2022, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment and opinion in which it was said that the non-parent had not presented enough evidence to disprove the legal presumption that the biological mother was acting in her child’s best interests when she chose to deny the ex-girlfriend access to the child.
The court of appeals overruled the trial court’s decision and returned to the mother the exclusive right to make decisions for her child.
The ex-girlfriend then filed an appeal with the SCOTX.
The heart of the matter in front of the Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) revolves around the legal rule that judges must begin a case by presuming that a parent is acting in the best interests of their child. This principle was emphasized by the SCOTX in a previous case called “In re C.J.C”, which set the stage for subsequent legal discussions on the subject. However, what remains unaddressed is a crucial aspect: Under what circumstances can a judge intervene and overrule a parent’s decisions for their child? This is the central issue that the FFP’s amicus curiae (friend of the court) seeks to tackle head-on.
The FFP’s involvement in the “IN re NH” case underscores the importance of clar