I ntensive Supervision Probation is a prog ram that provide s increa sed super vision services 1 and monitoring as an alternative f or juveniles who r equire a hig her le vel of super vision than juveniles rec eiving standard probation ser vices. The se prog rams re quire fr equent r eportingto a probation off

icer who ca rries a reduc ed ca seload. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 165 -CV

In the Matte r of O.M.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 1,98 3 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N O.M. appe als from the district c ourt’s orde r committing him to the custod y of the Te xas Y ou th C omm issio n (T YC ). O. M. argue s th a t th e c omm itm e nt o rd e r i s d e fi c ie nt b e c a us e it do e s n ot s pe c if

ic a lly state the re a so ns fo r m od if yingthe or ig ina l or de r and that the c ourt a bu se d it s discretion by

committing him to TYC. See T e x. F a m. Co d e A n n . § 5 4
. 0 5 ( We s t S u p p . 2 0 0 6 )
. We ho ld t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n a

nd a ff ir m th e or de r o f c omm itm e nt.
BACK GR OUND On May 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , O.M. was plac ed on probation for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. O ne month later, O.M. was detained for theft and was subsequently order ed to under g o ten months of I ntensive Supervision Probation wi th Pro je c t Spotl ig ht. Af

te r c on tin uin g to v iol a te his 1 probation, O.M. wa s moved to the Travis County L eade rship Aca demy

(TCL A) in January

2003.2

O.M. then absc onded fr om the TCL A Half way House for

approximately

seven months until he was detained fo r fa i l u re to identify himself and other

probation violations committed when he wa s involved in an au

to mo b il e collision. After

this incident, the probation depa rtment rec ommended that O.M. be plac ed in TYC, but the juvenile court re turned him to I ntensive Supervision Probation and order ed him to attend classe s at Americ an Youthwor ks. One c ondition of O.M.’s probation wa s that he could not leave Tra vis County

without his probation office r’s a

pproval. On F ebrua

ry 20, 2005, O.M. left Travis County and drove to San Antonio without noti fying his probation officer . On the wa y , O.M. was a

rre sted on the misdemeanor char g es of dr iving without a lice ns e an d fa i l u re to identify
. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 38.02( b) (West Supp. 2006); Tex . Transp. Code A nn. § 521.025 (West Supp. 2006).

On Feb r u ar y 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e St a te f

il e d a mo ti o nto mo d if

y d is p o s it io n . T h e mo tion alleg ed that O.M. violated the terms of his probation whe n he lef t Travis County

without notify ing his probation office r. The motion also alleg ed that O.M. violated his probation by not being inside his r esidenc e eve ry

day afte r cur fewand by

failing to attend classe s at Americ an Youthwor ks. The State wai ved the se latte r t wo g ro un ds a t th e he ari ng , a nd O. M. a dmi tte d le a vin g Tr a vis County wi t h o u tn o t i f

y i n g h i s p r o b a t i o no f

f i c e r . T h e j u v e n i l e c o u rtt h e nh e a r d e v i d e n c e r e g ar d i n g s en t en ci n g. O. M. ’s pr ob a tio n o ff

ice r tes tifie d th a t O .M . w a s c ur re ntl y e mpl oy e d a

nd that hi s supervisor r ece ntly

sent a letter

stating that O.M. had a positive attitude and g ood customer se rvice skills. S he additionally

testified that O.M. told her that his g irlfriend was preg nant and that he was planning to support the baby . He was also considering enrolling in a GED pr og ram. She stated that the probation department ha d used all the re source s it had available to help O.M., including ProjectAt the time of the he aring , O.M. was se ventee n y ear s old. 2 3 Spotli g ht, the TC L A, and Americ an Youthwor ks. Each time O.M. w as g iven another chanc e, he ha d vio la ted the te rm s o f h is p ro ba tio n. Th e re fo re , a

pr ob a tio n d e pa

rtme nt c omm itt e e un anim ou sly
a g re e d th a t th e on ly

a ve nu e le ft

fo r O .M . w a s c omm itm e nt t o T YC
. The district cour

t noted O. M
. ’s hi story

of noncomplianc e and de termined that
c omm itm e nt t o T YC wo uld be be st fo r O. M. and the c omm un ity
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c omm itt e d O .M
. t o T Y C f o r ani n d e t e r

m i n a t e a m o u n t o f

t i m e , n o tt o e x t e n d

p a s tO
. M
. ’ s 2 1 s tb i rt h d ay. The district 2
c ourt ’s or de r s tate d in

pa rt :
Th a t amon g sa id t e rm s and c on dit ion s o f pro bat ion we re the fo llo wi ng : Ru le #6–“Notify y our assigned Probation Office r by telephoning [num ber omitted], or the Offic er’ s direc t te lephone number befor e makingany chang e of a ddress, tele phone, sc ho ol, or e mpl oy me nt, or be fo re le a vin g the lim its of Tr a vis Co un ty .” Th e c hil d violated this rule of probation, to-wit: The said ch i l d o n Februar y 20, 2005, left Travis County

without Probation Office r’s pe rmission. The Court further finds that the Respondent re mains in need of r ehabilitation and that for the protec t i on of the public and of the child, a modification of the prior disposition must be made
. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

O.M. bring s two issues on appea l. First, he c ontends t h at t h e dis trict court’ s order modify ing his d i s position i s deficie nt beca use it does not specific ally state the re asons for modification. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05( i). Second, he argues t hat t he juvenile court a bused its discretion in committ ing him to TYC.4

Specif icity of the Order I n his first issue, O.M. insist s that the j uvenile court err ed by mere ly quoting statutory lang uag e and not spe cifica lly stating the rea sons for its m o d i fi ca t ions of the prior or der. Sec tion 54 .0 5( i) of

the Te xas F a mil y

Cod e st ate s th a t th e “ c ourt sh a ll s pe c if

ic a lly state in t he or de r i ts
rea sons for modifying the dispositi on.” Id . The purp o s e o f t h i s requirement is to ensure that the child has notice of

the cour t’s rea soning so h e can de termine if he should challeng e the or der on appea l. In re J

.R. , 9 07 S.W. 2d

10 7, 11 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 95 , n o wr it) . T he re qu ir e me nt a lso
cre ates a rec ord for

the appe llate court to determine whe ther the e vidence supports the court’ s order and if the f

indings a re suf ficient to justify

the disposition. In re L.R. , 6 7 S. W. 3 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 6
- 3 7 ( T e x. App.—El Paso 2001, no pet.). There fore , mere ly rec iting statutory lang uag e will not be suffic ient to justi fy a cour t’s ruling
. In re J

.T.H. , 779 S.W .2d 954, 9 5 9 (Tex . App.—Austin 1989, no writ). Howeve r, statutory

languag e supplemente d by additional finding s i s s u fficie nt to meet the require ments of the fa

mily code. Se e In re P. L. , 106 S.W .3d 334, 338 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pe t.) (o rd e r tr a c kin g langua g e of se c tio n 54 .0 5 and e xpla ini ng c ourt ’s re a so ns wa s a pp ro pr iate ). Th is Court ha s held that the inclusion of the offe nse and its surr ounding circ umstances in an order consisting of

mainly statutory lang uag e is sufficie nt. In re J .T.H. , 779 S.W .2d at 959. He r e , i na d d i t i o nt o r e p e a t i n g s t atu t o r y l an g u a g e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts p e c i f ic a lly de sc ri be d th e c on dit ion s o f O. M. ’s prob a tio n a nd ho w O .M . v iol a te d th os e c on dit ion s. Th e se finding s are sufficie nt to satisfy the requirements of section 54.05(i). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(i). Additionally , the district court’s finding s were supported by O.M.’s admission, evidenc e of mul tip le pr ob a tio n v iol a tio ns , a nd the re c omm e nd atio n of t

he pr ob a tio n d e pa

rtme nt. We o ve rr

ule O.M.’s first issue.5

Com m itm ent to TYC

I n his second issue, O.M. c ontends that the j u v en i l e cour t abused its discretion by committin g h i m t o TYC. O.M. claims that the district cour t’s decision wa s arbitra

ry and
un reason a

ble be c a us e his late st v iol a tio ns we re min or , h e on ly ha d thre e mon ths le ft

on his probation, and the commitment does not conform with the g oals of the juvenile justice code.

A cour t has the authority

to modify a dis position order if it finds by a pre pondera nce
o f t he evide nce that the child violated a r easona ble and law ful order

of the c ourt. Id . § 54.05(f)
. J uvenile cour

ts have broa d discretion in deter mining the dispositi on for c hildren who have eng ag ed in delinquent conduct. In re A.I

. , 82 S.W
. 3d 377, 379-80 (Te x . App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied)
. We reviewthe district court’s r uling f or an a buse of discr etion. In re M .S. , 940 S.W .2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ). To deter mine if the district court a bused its discretion, we examine whether

the district c ourt acte d arbitra rily or unrea sonably or without r efe renc e to g uiding rules. In re C.L. , 8 74 S.W. 2d 88 0, 88 6 (Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 94 , n o w ri t) . We may no t r e ve rs e under th is s ta

n d ar d if th e d e c is io n w a s w it h in th e c o u rt’ s a

u th o r it y e v e n if w e d is a g r e e with the decision. Id. Whenever possible, reha

bilitation s hould occur

in a family

environment. See T e x. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.01(5) ( West 2002). Never theless, when the re is a history of delinquent be havio r a

nd a juv e nil e re fu se s to ob e y

a uth or ity , c omm itm e nt t o a n in sti tut ion

ou tsi de of

the fa mil y may be appr opriate f

or the c hild’ s welfa

re a nd the intere st of public welfa re. See id. After

being place d on probation, O.M. violated the rules of his pr obation numerous times. These violations led to O .M . b e ingmov e d to the TL CA . A ft e r vio latin g his pr ob a tio n a g a in, O. M. fa c e d th e po ssi bil ity of be ingc omm itt e d to TY C. D e sp ite the re c omm e nd a tio n o f the pr ob a tio n d e pa rtme nt t o p la c e him6

in TYC, O.M. was g iven another chanc e b y t h e district court. He was plac ed on Intensive Supervision Probation and g iven the opportunity to a tt e n d A me r ic a n Y o uth w o r k s . D e s p ite numerous “sec ond chanc es,” O .M. repe atedly vio la te d th e c o n d it ions of

his probation. O.M. ac knowledg es that the e vid e nc e wa s f

a c tua lly and le g a lly suffi cie nt t o f

ind that he vio late d th e c on dit ion s o f h is probation. There fore , section 54.05(f) authorized the district cour t to commit hi m to TYC. Se e id
. § 5 4. 05 (f ). O. M. ’s c on tin

ue d d e lin qu e nc y

and his re pe a te d v iol atio ns of his pr ob a tio n mad e it
rea sonable for

the district court to dete rmine t h at TYC was the most effe ctive wa y to protect the public and re habilitate O.M. See id. We c onclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion by committing O.M. to TYC. We overr ule O.M.’s sec ond issue.
CO NC LU SION Be cause we have over

ruled both of O.M.’ s issues, we affirm the district c ourt’s orde r.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Oc tober 25, 2006