I have done mucho Westlaw research and have failed to find any dispositive authority on whether �great-grandparents� have the same standing afforded a grandparent to intervene in a pending suit under Tex. Fam. C. sec. 102.004. All I have found are ITIO J.S., B.D. and B.O, Children, WL 1693537 (Tex.App�Ft.Worth, 2005) (where Appellant great-grandmother had been primary caregiver as to two of the three and where the great-grandmother failed to appeal the striking of her standing as to her intervention regarding the third great-grandchild for whom she had not been primary care giver, instead pursuing appeal as to the other two); and Shaw vs. Green, 659 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.App.�Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no writ) (holding that great-grandmother had not justiciable interest or standing to sue for managing conservatorship or possessory conservatorship, noting that an appellate court had previously granted standing for grandparents to intervene seeking managing conservatorship but that �no Texas court has granted standing to a great-grandparent.)My judge believes the code saying "grandparent" naturally includes "great-grandparent."

I don't know if this will be helpful under your particular circumstances, but 102.004 also confers standing on other relatives "related within the third degree of consanguinity", which I believe would include a great-grandparent. Can you go that route?

Thanks DMS for your post. We are questioning the standing of the great-grandparent. 102.004 (a) is the subsection providing standing for "third degree" consanguinity folks which would include great-grandparents but they can't provide the requirements of (1) or (2), i.e. harmful present circumstances of the child or consent of managing conservators, in this case us, the Dept. (b) is the section that grants standing for grandparents or others with substantial past contact. They don't have substantial past contact so they are trying to say great-grandparent is the same as grand parent. The Judge agrees unless I find authority to the contrary. But I really appreciate your thought and effort to respond. All interest is helpful! Thanks

Sorry, I don't know of any authority to that effect. FYI: I was involved in a similar situation and the judge there was also of the opinion that the term "grandparent" under that provision automatically included great-grandparents as well.