In determining whether the trial court improperly denied appellants' motion to strike the Barretts' petition to intervene, we must decide if the trial court abused its discretion. See Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. 1990); In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles or if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

We review a trial court's denial of a motion to strike for an abuse of discretion. See In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles, that is, if the act is arbitrary or unreasonable.

Id. Interestingly, the court cited its earlier opinion in In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) to support its holding. However, in that case, the Fort Worth Court concluded that, when a party has standing to bring an original suit, but choses to intervene instead, the party must establish standing as an intervenor pursuant to Section 102.004(b).

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to strike for an abuse of discretion. See In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). However, to the extent the trial court's ruling depends on an issue of statutory interpretation, we review the court's ruling de novo.

See, e.g., In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (upholding intervention by foster parents when child had lived with them for about fourteen months); A.M., 60 S.W.3d at 169 (upholding trial court's implied finding that intervenors had substantial contact with the child when they had fostered the child for seven months at the time they filed their plea in intervention and had fostered the child for another seven months by the time their standing to intervene was challenged). Grandmother also argues that the Maroneys are not within three degrees of consanguinity.

We review a denial of a motion to strike under an abuse of discretion standard. In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.).

We review a denial of a motion to strike under an abuse of discretion standard. In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.).

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to strike a petition in intervention for abuse of discretion. See Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982); Spurck v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 396 S.W.3d 205, 217 (Tex. App.-Austin 2013, no pet.); In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (per curiam); In re J.P., 196 S.W.3d 434, 440 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). "A trial court abuses its discretion when a decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to guiding principles," and a trial court has "no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts."

In re S.V., No. 05-18-00037-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 948, at *14 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828, 831 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). As noted, a trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles.

We review a trial court's denial of a motion to strike intervention for an abuse of discretion. In re N.L.G. , 238 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles.