or the managing conservator either files a petition or consents to a suit by grandparents, the grandparents have standing. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(a)(2) (Vernon 2008). Thus, in this case, M.W.L.’s mother, one of the managing conservators, had already consented to her parents’ custodi anship by filing the modification suit with her parents before her death. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 13 (signing of pleading by attorneys or parties constitutes certifícate by them that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief ... [their claim] is not groundless or brought in bad faith), (“Every pleading ... shall be signed by at least one attorney.... A party not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleadings. ...”); In re A.M.S., 277 S.W.3d 92, 98 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The death of one party to a suit does not
holding district courts finding of voluntary consent not clearly erroneous when police encounter lacked drawn weapons threats or prolonged questioning and consent was given without reluctance or hesitation even though police did not advise defendant of right to refuse consent holding that the nature and scope of the petitioners consent and any conditions or limitations should be taken into account in examining a consent defense under article 13 of the convention holding that legislature does not specify when consent must be given or limit the form or nature of consent to any particular type for purposes of compliance with family code section 102004a2 holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime