Background
Grant Hanson and Tara Louise Nugent met online during the COVID-19 pandemic and dated, but Nugent ended their romantic relationship in spring 2022. She became pregnant with their child in late 2022. Throughout the pregnancy and after the child’s birth, Hanson’s use of marijuana, mushrooms, and alcohol—sometimes in combination—remained a persistent point of conflict. Nugent insisted on maintaining a sober household. Hanson appeared visibly under the influence of marijuana at the child’s birth despite Nugent’s request that he not attend if intoxicated, and he continued to appear under the influence at the child’s medical appointments.
The child was diagnosed with a respiratory disease and low muscle tone requiring near-constant monitoring from an alert caregiver. Nugent filed suit to establish conservatorship and possession orders. The trial court granted temporary orders providing Nugent temporary sole managing conservatorship, supervised visitation for Hanson, and required him to abstain from illegal drugs and submit to drug testing before each visit. At the bench trial, evidence showed Hanson had missed numerous medical appointments, tested positive for THC and benzodiazepine despite the temporary order’s clean-test requirement, grew marijuana at his home (involving his minor daughter from a prior relationship), and used unprescribed testosterone.
The trial court awarded Nugent sole managing conservatorship and Hanson possessory conservatorship under a tiered schedule that began with four-hour supervised visits on alternate weekends. Hanson could progress to less restrictive tiers only by presenting clean hair-follicle drug tests going back 90 days, then 180 days, with any positive result resetting him to tier one. The final tier would grant him standard possession rights once the child reached age three.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed all aspects of the trial court’s judgment. Addressing Hanson’s contention that he should have been appointed as a joint managing conservator, the court held that Texas Family Code § 153.131(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that parents should be appointed as managing conservators unless appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development. The burden on the opposing party is preponderance of the evidence. The court found legally sufficient evidence of parental unfitness beyond mere marijuana use, including: appearing intoxicated at the child’s birth and medical visits despite explicit request not to; missing numerous critical medical appointments; being so altered during visitation that he could not function; growing marijuana at home and enlisting his minor daughter to help; using mushrooms that cause hallucinations; using unprescribed testosterone; and testing positive for THC at levels inconsistent with the low dosage he claimed was prescribed.
Rejecting Hanson’s argument that his Texas Compassionate Use Program prescription immunized him from custody restrictions, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditioning possession on drug testing. The court noted that Hanson offered no legal authorities showing the Compassionate Use Act restricted the court’s power to impose such conditions, and that evidence showed he used illegal drugs beyond marijuana. Under Texas Family Code § 153.193, restrictions on possession may not exceed those required to protect the child’s best interest—a preponderance-of-evidence standard. The evidence of Hanson’s substance abuse history and the child’s special medical needs (requiring an alert caregiver) constituted legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the tiered schedule and drug-testing conditions.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s pattern of substance abuse and poor judgment—including appearing intoxicated at critical medical appointments and missing medical care—can rebut the presumption that parents should be appointed as managing conservators.
- Legal THC prescriptions under state compassionate-use programs do not shield a parent from custody restrictions when evidence shows a broader pattern of substance abuse and parental unfitness.
- Courts may impose drug-testing conditions and tiered possession schedules that allow progression toward fuller parental rights contingent on demonstrated sobriety, when the child’s best interest so requires.
- A child’s special medical needs requiring constant caregiver alertness strengthen the case for substance-abuse-related custody restrictions.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the broad discretion Texas courts possess when substance abuse threatens a child’s welfare. Significantly, it rejects the argument that legal medical marijuana use—even under the state’s Compassionate Use Program—provides a categorical shield against custody restrictions. The court’s focus remains on whether the parent’s actual conduct demonstrates unfitness to care for the child, not on the legality of any particular substance. For parents seeking to maintain or expand custody rights despite a history of drug use, the decision establishes a high bar: they must overcome not just the legal status of any substance, but evidence of pattern behavior affecting the child’s welfare.
The tiered possession schedule affirmed here represents an increasingly common judicial tool that balances parental rights with child protection by offering a pathway toward fuller access contingent on sustained sobriety. The decision’s emphasis on the child’s special medical needs also underscores how courts weigh custodial capacity differently depending on the specific vulnerabilities of the child involved. Hanson’s failure to adequately brief his arguments—particularly on how federal disability law or the Compassionate Use Act applied—also illustrates appellate practice pitfalls for pro se litigants in family-law appeals.