impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.” The current statute, therefore, places a very heavy threshold burden on a grandparent seeking to intervene in a SAPCR. Notably, although former section 102.004(b), unlike amended section 102.004(b), permitted a grandparent who established substantial past contact with a child to intervene to seek managing con-servatorship under former section 102.004(b) without also having to prove standing to file an original suit for managing conservatorship, most grandparent in-tervenors did make such proof and thus would also have been able to satisfy the more stringent requirements for intervention imposed by the 2005 amendment to section 102.004(b). See Chavez v. Chavez, 148 S.W.3d 449, 455-56 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); In re C.M.V., 136 S.W.3d at 285 (holding that
holding that maternal grandmother had standing to intervene in pending sapcr to seek managing conservatorship of child pursuant to former section 102004b and section 102004a where she had substantial past contact with child there was evidence of abuse and neglect of child by mother and mother had been arrested and had subsequently engaged in bizarre and dangerous behavior towards child had attacked grandmother with frying pan and hedge clippers and had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric center all of which established serious and immediate concern for welfare of child holding that where father who killed his wife had relinquished his children for adoption prior to his conviction the maternal grandparents of the children who had legal custody at the time of the adoption had standing to petition to unseal the adoption records this court vacated the orphans courts order that held the grandparents lacked standing and directed that on remand the orphans court determine whether the grandparents had shown cause under section 2905a to unseal the records holding that court could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old holding that when children had resided with grandparents for several months during pendency of divorce proceedings grandparents had standing to intervene and seek managing conservatorship under former section 102004b and section 1020039 holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing courts to recognize grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child where the child actually resided with the grandparents in a stable relationship