Temple v. Temple, ____S.W.3d____(
Karen is the adopted daughter of Cheryl and Phillip. At the time of the adoption, Karen was classified as severely emotionally disturbed. When the parties divorced, Karen remained with Cheryl. In 2003, at seventeen years old, Karen had a child, N.T. Karen and N.T. lived with Cheryl for the first twenty months of the child’s life and Karen relied heavily on Cheryl for the support and care of N.T. Karen later moved into an apartment with N.T., but still relied heavily on Cheryl. Karen was investigated for neglect on two occasions, but the allegations were not substantiated. However, social workers testified that N.T. thrived better with Cheryl than with Karen. In 2007 Karen gave Cheryl written permission to seek medical treatment for N.T. when necessary. She also agreed that N.T. should live with Cheryl. In November 2007 Phillip took N.T. for a visit and did not return him. Cheryl petitioned the court to declare her a de facto custodian and grant her permanent custody, or in the alternative grant her joint custody. Karen filed a written response, but did not seek custody for herself. Instead, she argued that her father should have custody.
After a hearing, the DRC rendered findings and conclusions of law that were adopted by the trial court. The court found that Cheryl was not a de facto custodian, since she failed to meet the one year time requirement. However, the court found that Karen waived her superior right to custody and therefore granted Cheryl sole custody of N.T. Phillip and Karen were granted shared visitation with N.T. one weekend a month. Karen was ordered to pay Cheryl $60 per month child support. Karen appealed.
COA affirmed, finding that Karen had waived her superior right to custody by failing to seek custody for herself. Karen admitted that she did not want custody of her son. She stated that if she were awarded custody she would give N.T. to her father. Her testimony was equivalent to an express waiver.