the right to use kitchen appliances and implements and the right to deny entry to a person who had no right to enter the house at all. Thus, the jury could have reasonably concluded Chana had a “right to actual care, custody, control, or management of the house.” And although a rational jury would probably conclude that Chana’s right to actual care, custody, control, or management of the Twombly Drive house was limited in scope and contingent on Janie’s continued permission, a rational jury could find that Chana’s limited right was greater than Ramirez’s — who had no right at all. See Garza, 344 S.W.3d at 413 (stating the Penal Code’s definition of owner is “expansive” and “give[s] ownership status to anyone with a rational connection to the property”); cf. Alexander, 757 S.W.2d at 97 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion We hold the evidence at Ramirez’s
holding a rational jury could find the named owners limited right to actual care custody control or management of his neighbors half of the duplex was a greater right than the defendants recognizing in dictum parents right to care custody management and companionship of their children recognizing that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care custody and control of their children holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right holding that a parents right to the care custody companionship and management of his or her child is a fundamental right protected by the federal and state constitutions