nature of a summary judgment hearing. Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 442. The only evidence the movant offered in support of summary judgment was the deemed admissions. The trial court granted summary judgment against the pro se litigant, terminating her rights as joint managing conservator of her daughter and appointing the movant as the sole managing conservator. Id. The Court reaffirmed the Carpenter two-fold standard for withdrawing deemed admissions and for allowing a late summary judgment response. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that the pro se litigant had good cause for her late-filed responses, and that once the requests were no longer deemed admitted, she was not required to file a summary judgment response. Id. (citing Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 222-23 (Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>)). Although the pro se litigant never filed a
holding that the parly opposing summary judgment must do more than merely suggest possible error in the movants summary judgment evidence he must submit facts which demonstrate that the movants summary judgment evidence is questionable or that the movants allegations are not properly supported holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment holding that nonmovants failure to except or respond cannot supply by default the grounds for summary judgment or the summary judgment proof necessary to establish the movants right holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion