Ann’s mother moved in with her boyfriend. Because Ann lived approximately half of the time with her mother, over the next 11 months Ann spent approximately 5-6 months living in the same house with her mother’s boyfriend.

Even though all parties in the case agreed that Chris was an entirely fit father, the trial court granted the fiance joint-custody of Ann. The court gave the fiancé the right to access Ann’s medical and school records, the right to make certain medical decisions for Ann, and the right to have Ann stay with him various days and nights per month.

The court also ordered that Chris and the fiancé would be required to share otherwise private information about Ann with each other.

Chris filed an emergency appeal (a mandamus) with the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that his constitutional rights as a parent had been violated by the trial court’s grant of joint custody to the fiancé.

Chris filed another brief with the Texas Supreme Court as a reply to the fiancé’s previous brief. Chris’ legal team argued in the brief that the fiancé was ignoring Chris’ constitutional right to raise his own daughter.

The fiancé then filed another response in the case arguing again that Chris’ constitutional rights did not prevent the fiance from obtaining joint-custody of Ann.

As requested, Chris filed an extended brief with the Texas Supreme Court arguing that his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court granted custody of Ann to the fiancé, a non-relative who had spent minimal time with Ann, even though Chris had been determined to be a fit parent.

The Parental Rights Foundation filed a brief in the case arguing that the court should protect Chris’ constitutional rights as a fit parent and outlining for the court the numerous other states who have similarly protected the constitutional rights of fit parents.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a brief in the case arguing that when the trial court granted custody of Ann to fiancé, it violated Chris’ rights under the United States and Texas constitutions.

The fiancé filed his extended brief in the case. In his brief, the fiancé argued that because Chris and Ann’s mother had once been involved in a child custody dispute as parents, they had effectively granted the court complete authority to overrule their rights as parents at any point in the future any time someone attempted to interfere with their parental rights.

Chris filed a brief replying to the fiancé. Chris argued in his brief that it was absurd to claim that just because he and Ann’s mother had once been through a custody dispute that they had forever given up their parental rights to the court, allowing future parties like fiancé to obtain custody of their daughter.

A Voice for Choice Advocacy filed a brief in the case. The brief argued that Chris has a fundamental, constitutional right to raise Ann and that the court should use the highest level of scrutiny when evaluating whether actions burdening that right are valid.

The Texas Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Texas, submitted a brief in the case. The Attorney General argued that Chris has a constitutional right to raise Ann and that the trial court had violated Chris’ rights by allowing the fiancé to obtain joint custody.

Texas Values submitted a brief in the case. The brief argues that Chris has a constitutional right to raise Ann and the trial court’s order that granted the fiancé custody destroys the critical importance of the family unit.

The Texas Association of Family Defense Attorneys (TAFDA) filed a brief in the case responding to arguments raised by the Family Law Section of the State Bar.

In the brief, TAFDA describes as “absurd” the argument raised by the State Bar that Chris’ constitutional rights should not be protected in the case.

An attorney from Fort Worth also submitted an independent brief in the case, defending the father.

The fiance filed a rare post-submission brief with the court following the court’s hearing of the case on oral arguments.

In the new brief, the fiance seemingly abandoned his position that Chris’s constitutional rights do not exist to protect him in this case. Instead, the brief acknowledges Chris’ constitutional rights but proceeds to argue that Ann has a constitutional right to be with the fiance instead of with her father.

The brief argues that Ann’s constitutional rights conflict with with Chris’ rights and that, as a result, the court should simply decide who should have custody of Ann based on the judge’s personal opinion of what is in Ann’s best interest.

In a unanimous opinion, the Texas Supreme Court issued a landmark decision upholding Chris’ constitutional right to be with his daughter.

The court found that Chris was a “loving and attentive parent” and held that “a court must apply the presumption that a fit parent—not the court—determines the best interest of the child in any proceeding in which a nonparent seeks conservatorship or access over the objection of a child’s fit parent.”

The court’s unanimous ruling defending the constitutional rights of parents is being touted as the most significant parental rights victory before the Texas Supreme Court in Texas history. The ruling will serve to help protect future generations of Texas families.

Thanks to the support from numerous pro-family organizations, the State of Texas, and tens of thousands of people across the country, Ann will be able to stay with her dad.