partially concurring and partially dissenting.
I concur with the majority that this case should be reversed and remanded to the trial court; however, I dissent on the majority ruling that the purpose for remanding the cause is for a determination of whether sufficient cause exists to strike the plea in intervention.
With careful ambiguities, the majority has avoided addressing the issues in the case and has reached an enigmatic conclusion. The majority opinion requires a hearing to allow the introduction of evidence on the question of whether sufficient cause to strike the intervention exists. Yet, the majority leaves to obscurity as to what this evidence might pertain. Without guidance, the trial court and the litigants must conduct a proceeding to ascertain what is already undisputed in the record.
The majority cites no case, statute or rule requiring such a hearing.
Pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 60,. a motion was made by the party opposing the intervention. The gist of this motion is that the intervenors lack standing or lacked a justi-ciable interest. The trial judge is allowed under Rule 60 to determine the justiciable interest on the basis of the sufficiency of the petition in intervention. The sufficiency of the petition is tested by its allegations of fact on which the right to intervene depends. Rogers v. Searle, 533 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1976, no writ); Wilson v. County of Calhoun, 489 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The petition in intervention will fail if no right to intervene is shown because no sufficient interest is alleged by the ¿arty seeking to intervene. Mulcahy v. Houston Steel Drum Co., 402 S.W.2d 817 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1966, no writ).
The trial judge is specific, in his reason for dismissing the plea of intervention. The order states that the intervenors had not had the child for six months prior to the time of filing of their intervention, that they were not persons who have an interest *167in such child as set out in Section 11.03 of the Family Code, and that they have no standing to maintain the intervention. The majority has not demonstrated why the trial judge could not base his conclusion on the undisputed facts alleged in the pleadings.
No point of error is made on appeal concerning the need for a hearing for the presentation of evidence. It is undisputed by the parties that the intervenors were the grandparents of the child and that they had possession of the child beginning July 15, 1984 until March 18,1985.1 (The beginning date of possession was agreed to be counsel in a hearing before the court on March 18, 1985.)
It should also be pointed out that the failure of the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the intervention was not a point raised by the appellants on the appeal of this case.
There are three grounds which are undisputed in the record which give the inter-venors standing or a justiciable interest in this case.
The first ground is established by the case of Young v. Young, 693 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ dism’d). The majority opinion relies strongly on the dicta in the Young case, but ignores the ratio decidendi of that case. In Young v. Young, supra, the appellants challenged the standing of the intervenors and the court held as a matter of law that grandparents have a justiciable interest in a proceeding to name the managing conservator of their grandchild.
In the case of Waits v. Watts, 573 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1978, no writ), the court held that grandparents have the type of interest in their grandchildren which gives them standing to seek modification of conservatorship through their appointment as managing conservator.
The second ground establishing a justiciable interest involves the possession of the child for more than six months. Section 11.03 of the Family Code at the time of the dismissal of the intervenors provided that a person has an interest in a child if the person has had possession and control of the child for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Although the six months time period had not elapsed at the time of the filing of the original petition, approximately eight months of possession had occurred at the time of the filing of the amended petition. This seems to be analogous to the six months residential requirements for which the courts have repeatedly held that the time of the filing of the amended petition should be considered as the filing of the suit. Perusse v. Perusse, 402 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1966, no writ); Whitsett v. Whitsett, 201 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Coleman v. Coleman, 20 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1929, no writ). Under this line of cases, the courts have held that even though the party had not established the six months residency in the county at the time of the filing of the original petition, the courts would look to the residential requirements at the time of the filing of the amended petition. This same reasoning should apply to requirements of six months for possession of a child.
Section 11.03 of the Family Code deals with who may bring a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. A person or entity has a right to intervene if the intervenor could have brought the same action or any part thereof in his own name. Brewer v. Mendez, 620 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 626 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.1982).
The third established ground which gave the parents standing is under Section 11.-09(a) of the Family Code which provides that a managing conservator, among others, is entitled to service of citation on the *168filing of a petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The intervenors were appointed temporary managing conservators on February 25, 1985. This list of persons entitled to service of citation on . commencement of the suit affecting parent-child relationship is a legislative determination of persons who have a relationship with the child of sufficient legal dignity to be entitled to participate in an action involving the child. Pratt v. Texas Department of Human Resources, 614 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1981, writ ref d n.r.e.). The persons so listed are persons who have “an interest in the child” giving them standing to bring suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Again, the standing to bring suit is the equivalent of standing to intervene. This temporary managing conservatorship was set aside on March 18, 1985, being the same date that the plea of intervention was dismissed and the final decree of divorce was granted.
By ignoring precedents and sidestepping the issue, the majority opinion leaves the salient question unanswered: What constitutes standing to maintain an intervention? This is the only issue raised by the motion to dismiss, the order of dismissal and the appeal.
What is accomplished by the trial court conducting an evidentiary hearing? No doubt, the intervenors will still be the grandparents of the child; the intervenors will still be shown to have been in possession of the child for eight months at the time of the filing of the amended motion to intervene; and they will still be the persons shown by the record to have been appointed temporary managing conservators.
And the prayer of the ancient Greek Ajax is still to be heard: “Reverse our judgment if it pleases you, but at least say something clear to help us in the future.”
For the foregoing reasons, the order dismissing the intervenor should be set aside, and the grandparents having established a justiciable interest should be permitted to present their case on its merits.
. If the time of possession was in dispute, then the standing would become a factual question to be decided by the court. Cruz v. Scanlan, 682 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ).