Frisco, TEXAS, Oct. 23, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Michelle May O’Neil, founder of Concierra Legal, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of Texas addressing how parental rights and children’s access to justice intersect when a parent seeks to pursue a child’s legal claim. Filed October 19 in Ellis v. Prince, No. 25-0939, the brief asks the Court to consider both the constitutional authority of a fit parent and the distinct rights of a child who cannot independently navigate the legal system.
Michelle May O’Neil strategic legal counsel in high stakes litigation and experienced family law appellate counsel.
O’Neil submitted the brief individually through Concierra Legal aligned with petitioner Eric Ellis, acting as next friend to his minor child. Her argument draws on constitutional family law, the Texas Family Code, and the Texas Constitution’s Open Courts guarantee.
Children’s Rights and Parental Authority
The brief centers on a distinction with practical consequences: children possess legal rights of their own, while parents ordinarily exercise the judgment necessary to protect those rights during childhood. Recognizing parental authority does not transfer ownership of a child’s claim to the parent.
O’Neil argues that this relationship must remain part of the analysis when a child’s rights require judicial protection. A parent’s constitutional role does not disappear merely because a dispute reaches a courtroom, and a child’s inability to act independently does not diminish the child’s interest in obtaining a remedy.
“A child’s legal rights belong to the child,” said O’Neil. “The parent’s role is to help make those rights exercisable. When courts decide how a child may pursue a claim, they must account for both the child’s right to a remedy and the authority the law entrusts to the parent.”
What Is at Stake in Ellis v. Prince
The case presents questions about a parent’s ability to pursue legal action on behalf of a minor child without an attorney. O’Neil’s brief offers a focused family law and constitutional perspective on those questions.
Texas Family Code section 151.001(a)(7) recognizes a parent’s right to represent a child in legal action and make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child. The brief argues that this statutory authority must have meaningful weight when courts determine how a child’s claim may proceed.
Drawing on United States Supreme Court precedent and the Supreme Court of Texas’s decision in In re C.J.C., O’Neil explains that parental authority and children’s independent rights can coexist with safeguards protecting the child. The brief recognizes that parental authority is not absolute and that conflicts or other legally sufficient circumstances may require intervention.
Choosing a Forum and Reaching a Court
The brief also addresses the Supreme Court of Texas’s October 16 decision in UATP Management, LLC v. Geter. As discussed in the filing, the Court enforced an arbitration agreement signed by a mother on her child’s behalf, recognizing the parent’s statutory authority to make decisions of substantial legal significance.
O’Neil draws a connection between that authority and the questions in Ellis: if a parent may personally make a binding decision directing a child’s claim into arbitration, the parent’s legal role also deserves consideration when seeking to bring the child’s claim into court.
“The law recognizes a parent’s authority to make decisions that shape where a child’s rights will be heard,” O’Neil said. “That authority must also matter when the parent seeks a meaningful opportunity for those rights to be heard at all.”
Access to Justice from a Family Law Perspective
The brief invokes the Texas Constitution’s Open Courts guarantee and Sax v. Votteler, which addressed restrictions on a minor’s ability to obtain legal redress. O’Neil argues that courts must consider how procedural requirements operate together with the legal limitations of childhood.
Her concern is practical: a child cannot proceed independently, yet the person ordinarily entrusted with the child’s legal decisions may be unable to secure adjudication unless separate counsel can be obtained. The brief urges the Court to account for that consequence when resolving the questions presented.
O’Neil brings more than three decades of experience and more than 200 appellate matters, predominantly involving family law, to the filing. She prepared the brief on a volunteer basis, with no fee paid or to be paid, and disclosed no pecuniary interest in the outcome.
About Concierra Legal
Concierra Legal is a Texas law practice led by trial and appellate attorney Michelle May O’Neil. The firm provides appellate representation and strategic counsel in consequential legal matters, drawing on more than three decades of litigation experience. Its work includes appeals, original proceedings, and strategic guidance on preserving issues for appellate review. This press release does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. More information is available at ConcierraLegal.com.
About Michelle May O’Neil
Michelle May O’Neil is Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has 34 years of trial and appellate experience. She has handled more than 200 appellate matters, including dozens of matters presented to the Supreme Court of Texas and a filing in the United States Supreme Court. She is recognized among the Best Lawyers in America and Texas Super Lawyers, including the Top 50 Women Texas Super Lawyers and Top 100 Dallas/Fort Worth Super Lawyers lists. She founded Concierra Legal. Her work addresses the intersection of family law, constitutional protections, appellate advocacy, and access to justice.
Press Inquiries
Michelle May O’Neil
michelle [at] concierralegal.com
214-676-9051
https://ConcierraLegal.com
5 Cowboys Way
Suite 300, MB #90
Frisco, Texas 75034
