In the Interest of N.I.V.S. and M.C.V.S., Minor Children
Texas Court of Appeals
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2282, 2015 WL 1120913 (2015)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Dino Villarreal (plaintiff), a transgender man, was in a relationship with Sandra Sandoval (defendant). In 2002 Sandoval adopted N.I.V.S. and, two years later, M.C.V.S., both as newborns, while living with Villarreal. For seven years, Villarreal, Sandoval, N.I.V.S., and M.C.V.S. lived together as a family, with Villarreal being known as the father. The children were unaware of Villarreal’s status as a transgender man. In January 2011, Villarreal and Sandoval separated. Villarreal moved out, but he continued to spend time with and care for the children. In November 2013, Sandoval refused Villarreal’s requests to see the children. Shortly thereafter, Villarreal obtained an order changing his name from Diana Villarreal to Dino Villarreal. In December, Villarreal filed numerous petitions, including a petition in suit to adjudicate parentage and a petition seeking his appointment as a co-conservator with equal access. A week later, Villarreal filed a voluntary statement of paternity with the trial court, asserting the children had no other known biological father with legal rights. The trial court granted Villarreal’s temporary order for possession of the children, and the case was reset to January 6, 2014. On January 3, 2014, a court issued Villarreal an order changing his gender identity. Sandoval filed motions to dismiss the suit based on lack of jurisdiction. Villarreal asserted standing under numerous prongs of the Texas Family Code, two of which contained the term man. Section 160.602(a)(3) provided that a paternity suit could be brought by a man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated, and § 102.003(a)(8) provided that a suit affecting a parent-child relationship could be filed by a man alleging himself to be the father. Villarreal also alleged standing under various legal doctrines. The trial court granted Sandoval’s motion regarding jurisdiction, finding, in part, that Villarreal did not have standing under § 160.602(a)(3) or § 102.003(a)(8), because he was not a man. Villarreal appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martinez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.