IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 07-0621

════════λ= 2;═══

In the Interest of = D.N.C., a=20 Child

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the First = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════

~consolidated=20 with~

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 07-0622

════════λ= 2;═══

In the Interest of = T.L.J.=20 and T.B.J., Children

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the First = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════

~consolidated=20 with~

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 07-0623

════════λ= 2;═══

In the Interest of = T.J.C.=20 and T.D.C., Children

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the First = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════

~consolidated=20 with~

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 07-0624

════════λ= 2;═══

In the Interest of = E.D.C., a=20 Child

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the First = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════

~consolidated=20 with~

════════&#= 9552;═══

No. 07-0625

════════λ= 2;═══

In the Interest of = J.D.M., a=20 Child

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the First = District of=20 Texas

════════&#= 9552;═════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════

PER = CURIAM

In = these five=20 cases, the Department of Family and Protective Services sought = termination of=20 Ericka Shanette Colbert=92s parental rights = to her seven=20 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=20 court found that Colbert had endangered her children and terminated = Colbert=92s=20 parental rights under section 161.001(1)(D) = of the=20 Family Code. Making no additional findings, the trial court appointed = the=20 Department of Family and Protective Services as the children=92s = managing=20 conservator.

=20 On appeal, Colbert challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to = support=20 the termination order, but she did not separately challenge appointment = of the=20 Department as the children=92s managing conservator. The court of = appeals reversed=20 the termination order on factual insufficiency grounds, and also = reversed the=20 trial court=92s conservatorship appointment. 227 = S.W.3d 799,=20 816. The court reasoned that no findings had been made under = Family Code=20 section 153.131 [1] that would independently = support the=20 conservatorship order, and thus the Department=92s appointment was = solely the=20 consequence of the trial court=92s termination decision under Family = Code section=20 161.207 [2] and had to be reversed as = well.=20 Id.

=20 The Department here contends reversal of the conservatorship = order was=20 erroneous under our recent decision in In=20 the Interest of J.A.J., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2007). = In=20 J.A.J., however, the Department requested conservatorship = pursuant to=20 Family Code section 153.131 and the trial court made the specific = findings that=20 the statute requires: that appointment of a parent as J.A.J.=92s managing conservator would not be in = his best=20 interest because it would significantly impair his physical health or = emotional=20 development, and that appointment of the Department was in J.A.J.=92s best interest. Id. at ___. In light of these findings, we emphasized = that the=20 differing elements and standards of review applied to conservatorship = and=20 termination orders required separate challenges on appeal. Id. at=20 ___. In this case, by comparison, the only available statutory = mechanism=20 for the Department=92s appointment was as a consequence of the = termination=20 pursuant to section 161.207. See Tex. Fam. Code = =A7 161.207. = Accordingly,=20 J.A.J. does not apply, and Colbert=92s challenge to the = conservatorship=20 appointment was subsumed in her appeal of the parental-rights = termination=20 order.

=20 The Department=92s petition for reviews are denied.

Opinion=20 Delivered: February 8, 2008

^[1]=20 Section 153.131 creates a presumption of managing conservatorship in = favor of a=20 parent or parents unless the court finds that such appointment =93would = not be in=20 the best interest of the child because the appointment would = significantly=20 impair the child=92s physical health or emotional development.=94 Tex. Fam. Code = =A7 153.131(a). A = finding of a=20 history of family violence involving a child=92s parents removes the = presumption=20 that appointment of the child=92s parents is in the child=92s best = interest.=20 Id. =A7=20 153.131(b).

^[2]=20 Section 161.207, entitled =93Appointment of Managing Conservator on = Termination,=94=20 provides that the court shall appoint a suitable managing conservator = =93[i]f the court terminates the parent-child = relationship with=20 respect to both parents or to the only living parent.=94 Tex. Fam. = Code =A7=20 161.207(a).