With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 120 S.Ct. at 2057. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children. Id. at 72, 120 S.Ct. at 2063. Troxel does not, however, affect the issue of establishing standing to intervene in an ongoing suit affecting the parent-child relationship presented by the case before us. In this case, section 102.004(b) does not interfere with a parent’s right to make decisions concerning her children. As shown below, before Carol could be awarded managing conservatorship, she was still required to overcome the strong parental presumption in favor of Tammy in a trial on the merits. See, e.g., In re SSI-I, 153 S.W.3d 132, 138 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). As courts have repeatedly held, standing to

A: holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing
B: holding that troxel opinion did not affect issue of grandparent standing because texas family code standing statute does not overrule parental presumption
C: holding that standing existed
D: holding individual standing issue waived
B.