When parents are involved in a custody dispute in Texas, the court’s ultimate concern is what arrangement best promotes the child’s well-being. Under the Texas Family Code (the “Family Code”), one possibility is for the court to appoint one parent as sole managing conservator (SMC) of the child. Below is a discussion of what circumstances might trigger that outcome, first from the mother’s perspective, then the father’s, and finally when the state might intervene and remove the children from both parents. If you require assistance with a child custody case, our Dallas, TX child visitation lawyer is here to help.
Mother’s Interest In Obtaining Sole Managing Conservatorship
When a mother seeks to be named sole managing conservator under Texas law, she will be asking the court to grant her the exclusive right to make key decisions for the child (such as primary residence, medical treatment, education). The statute spells out the rights of a parent appointed SMC: under Section 153.132 of the Family Code, a parent appointed as sole managing conservator has – unless limited by court order – the rights of designating the primary residence, consenting to medical/surgical/psychiatric care, representing the child in legal action, making educational decisions, and so on.
Because Texas law begins with a presumption that one or both parents will be managing conservators, the mother must show that sole conservatorship is in the child’s best interest and that joint conservatorship (or the father being co-conservator) is not appropriate. Under Section 153.131, there is a presumption that a parent (or both parents) be appointed managing conservator unless appointment “would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.”
Thus, from the mother’s standpoint, to make a viable case for sole managing conservatorship she should document circumstances such as:
- That she is able to provide a stable home environment, adult supervision, appropriate schooling, and access to medical and psychological care;
- That the father either cannot reliably share in major decision-making, or that joint management would be likely to produce conflict harmful to the child’s welfare;
- That the child’s needs (physical, emotional, psychological) will be better served if she (the mother) is the sole decision-maker—in other words, joint conservatorship would not be in the best interest of the child.
In addition, the court must consider whether the other parent (in this case the father) has engaged in a history or pattern of family violence, child abuse or neglect, or has been the subject of a protective order. Section 153.005(c) of the Family Code requires the court to take that into account. For example, if the father has abused or neglected the child, or there has been domestic violence, that may tip the balance toward appointing the mother as sole managing conservator.
From the mother’s side, then, the narrative could be: “I am the parent best able to protect and nurture our child; the father has either shown an inability to help make decisions or a pattern of behaviour that undermines stability; therefore I should be sole managing conservator so that the child’s best interest is met.”
Father’s Interest In Being Sole Managing Conservator
On the flip side, a father may likewise seek to be the sole managing conservator—or resist being relegated to a lesser role (such as a possessory conservator with limited decision-making). For the father to succeed, the same legal standards apply: the court will examine whether his appointment as SMC is in the child’s best interest and whether joint management is inappropriate because it would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development. (Again per Section 153.131 and related sections)
For the father to make his case, he should show:
- That he has been actively involved in the child’s life, made responsible decisions, provided a stable home, and is able to meet the child’s developmental needs;
- That the mother either is unable or less able to serve in the managing role (for example, due to instability, substance issues, mental health concerns, or other impairments) and that joint conservatorship would harm rather than help the child;
- That, in his view, granting him sole managing conservatorship would serve the child’s best interest by giving clarity in decision-making and minimizing conflict.
The father (just like the mother) also faces the negative factors: if he has a history or pattern of family violence or child neglect/abuse, or a protective order against him, the court must consider that and may find sole conservatorship inappropriate.
Ultimately, while the law starts with the idea that parents should be appointed as managing conservators (either jointly or sole) unless there is reason to deviate, the father must convincingly show that sole conservatorship (instead of joint) is necessary and in the child’s best interest.
When Might The State Remove The Children From Both Parents?
There are extreme situations in Texas in which neither parent remains fit to have conservatorship of the child, and the state (through the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services or a licensed agency) may step in. Two key statutory mechanisms: emergency removal and termination of parental rights.
1. Emergency removal: Under Section 262.104 of the Family Code, if there is no time to obtain a court order, a DFPS representative or law-enforcement officer may take possession of the child without a court order if there is immediate danger to the child’s physical health or safety. So if a parent’s situation becomes suddenly dangerous—serious abuse, imminent risk of harm—the child can be removed immediately.
2. Termination of parental rights and state conservatorship: Chapter 161 of the Family Code sets out the grounds for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship (which would essentially allow the state to appoint itself or another adult as managing conservator). For example, a parent may have voluntarily left the child in possession of another, without support, for a defined period; knowingly placed or allowed the child to remain in conditions that endanger the child’s physical or emotional well-being; or engaged in conduct that places the child with someone who endangers the child. If the court finds such grounds by clear and convincing evidence and determines that termination is in the child’s best interest, then the parental rights may be ended, and the state or another adult may become conservator.
What this means in practice: if both parents are unable to protect, nurture, or provide for the child—or worse, if both are actively harming the child—the court can find that neither is fit to serve as managing conservator. In that event, the state may become managing conservator, or the court may appoint a non-parent SMC under Section 153.371.
In summary, removal from both parents typically occurs when there is either imminent danger (emergency removal) or a sustained pattern of failings so severe that termination of parental rights and appointment of another conservator is warranted.
Final Thoughts
Custody battles in Texas revolve around the best interest of the child standard. While the default presumption is that parents should be managing conservators (either jointly or one parent sole) under the Family Code, the court will deviate from that presumption in situations where appointing a parent (or both parents) as manager would “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.”
For a mother or father seeking sole managing conservatorship, it is essential to provide evidence of stability, parenting competence, the ability to make decisions in the child’s best interest, and the presence of circumstances making joint conservatorship or the other parent’s involvement unsound.
If the child’s welfare is sufficiently threatened—by abuse, neglect, abandonment, or other serious issues—the state may step in and remove the children from both parents, temporarily or permanently, through emergency removals or rights termination. For assistance with your custody case, contact our team at the Brandy Austin Law Firm today.