Court Opinion

ID: 2834387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-02 17:40:04.328307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:13.795193
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
 
════════════
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).