Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.M., A CHILD  (other)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 07-0625

State: texas

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
============ No. 07-0621 ============ In the Interest of D.N.C., a Child ============================================== On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ============================================== ~consolidated with~ ============ No. 07-0622 ============ In the Interest of T.L.J. and T.B.J., Children ============================================== On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ============================================== ~consolidated with~ ============ No. 07-0623 ============ In the Interest of T.J.C. and T.D.C., Children ============================================== On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ============================================== ~consolidated with~ ============ No. 07-0624 ============ In the Interest of E.D.C., a Child ============================================== On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ============================================== ~consolidated with~ ============ No. 07-0625 ============ In the Interest of J.D.M., a Child ============================================== On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ============================================== PER CURIAM In these five cases, the Department of Family and Protective Services sought termination of Ericka Shanette Colbert s parental rights to her seven children, T.J.C., T.D.C., D.N.C., T.L.J., T.B.J., E.D.C., and J.D.M. The trial court found that Colbert had endangered her children and terminated Colbert s parental rights under section 161.001(1)(D) of the Family Code. Making no additional findings, the trial court appointed the Department of Family and Protective Services as the children s managing conservator. On appeal, Colbert challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination order, but she did not separately challenge appointment of the Department as the children s managing conservator. The court of appeals reversed the termination order on factual insufficiency grounds, and also reversed the trial court s conservatorship appointment. 227 S.W.3d 799, 816. The court reasoned that no findings had been made under Family Code section 153.131[1] that would independently support the conservatorship order, and thus the Department s appointment was solely the consequence of the trial court s termination decision under Family Code section 161.207[2] and had to be reversed as well. Id. The Department here contends reversal of the conservatorship order was erroneous under our recent decision in In the Interest of J.A.J., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2007). In J.A.J., however, the Department requested conservatorship pursuant to Family Code section 153.131 and the trial court made the specific findings that the statute requires: that appointment of a parent as J.A.J. s managing conservator would not be in his best interest because it would significantly impair his physical health or emotional development, and that appointment of the Department was in J.A.J. s best interest. Id. at ___. In light of these findings, we emphasized that the differing elements and standards of review applied to conservatorship and termination orders required separate challenges on appeal. Id. at ___. In this case, by comparison, the only available statutory mechanism for the Department s appointment was as a consequence of the termination pursuant to section 161.207. See Tex. Fam. Code 161.207. Accordingly, J.A.J. does not apply, and Colbert s challenge to the conservatorship appointment was subsumed in her appeal of the parental-rights termination order. The Department s petition for reviews are denied. Opinion Delivered: February 8, 2008 [1] Section 153.131 creates a presumption of managing conservatorship in favor of a parent or parents unless the court finds that such appointment would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child s physical health or emotional development. Tex. Fam. Code 153.131(a). A finding of a history of family violence involving a child s parents removes the presumption that appointment of the child s parents is in the child s best interest. Id. 153.131(b). [2] Section 161.207, entitled Appointment of Managing Conservator on Termination, provides that the court shall appoint a suitable managing conservator [i]f the court terminates the parent-child relationship with respect to both parents or to the only living parent. Tex. Fam. Code 161.207(a).