## In the Court of Appeals Second App ellate District of Texas at Fort Wo rth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00312

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. 13147

- JD

- B
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach 

### I N THE 

### M ATTER OF 

### D.T., A 

### J UVENILE2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
I
. Introduction Appellant D.T. was twelve years old when he stip ulated to and was adjudicated delinquent for having committed aggravated sexual assault of a child by intentionally or knowingly causing the sexual organ o f a ch ild under the age of fourteen 1 to contact his mouth or tongue , which would be a first

- deg ree fe lony offense fo r an ad ult

. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2 2 .021 (e)

. The juvenile court placed D.T. on two years ’ probation and then modified his probation tw ice. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05.
I n th ree is sues, D.T

. , who is now fi fteen year s old, complains about the second
modification and disposition , 2 ar guing that the juvenile court abused its discretion (1) by denying his motio n for dismissal of the State ’ s modificat ion petition , (2) by finding that he violated his pr oba tion , and (3) by ordering his probation extend ed
until he turn s eighteen

. Because the record reflects no abuse of discretion , w e affirm

. II . Discussio n A juv eni le court is vested with considerable di s cretion in determ i ning the suitable dispositio n fo r a c hild who has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct and “ in proceedin gs to modify an earlier disposition. ” In re M.N. ,

1 Th e record reflects that D. T. ’ s victim was a six

- year

- old relative at the time of th e offe nse.

2 In juvenil e ca ses, “ d isposi tion ” is “ akin to sentencing and is used to honor the
non

- c riminal character of the juv enile proceedings. ” In re D. L. , 541 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.)

.3 No. 02

- 18

- 00044

- CV, 2019 WL 1715981, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 18, 2019, n o pet.) (mem. op.) ; s ee In re J. M. , No . 02

- 19

- 003 25

- CV, 2020 W L 39 87581, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jun e 4, 2020, no pet.) ( mem. op.) ( stating that the court
reviews a decision to modify a juvenile disposition for an abuse of di scretion ); see also
In re L .A.G.R. , No s . 07

- 14

- 00072

- CV,

- 00073

- CV, 201 4 WL 5 462540, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Oct. 28, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (requiring probation violat ion to be found by a preponderance of the evidence)

. A juveni le court abuses its discretion when it a cts a r bitrarily or unreasonably or
without refere nce to gui ding ru les or principles. M. N. , 2019 WL 1715981, at *1

. I t does not abuse its discretion simp ly by basi ng its decision on conflicting evidence. In

re C.C. , N o. 02

- 17

- 00216

- CV, 2018 WL 1865804, at * 3 (Te x. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2018, no pet.) (me m. o p.)

. We will not find tha t the juvenile court a bused its
discretion so long as some evidence of substantive and probative character exists to
sup port its decisio n. Id. In conducting our review, we enga ge in a two

- pronged analysis: (1) did the juvenile cour t have sufficient i nfo rmation upon which to exercise
i ts discretion, and (2) did it err in its application of discretion? Id. W e apply the c ivil
standards of rev iew for the legal and factual suff icienc y of the evidence 3 to s u p p o rt a

3 Under the lega l

- sufficiency st andar d of revie w, w e may s ustain such a challenge only w hen (1) the record bears no evidence of a vital fact, (2) the rule s of law or of evidence bar the court from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to pr ove a vita l fact is n o more than a mere scintilla, or (4) t he evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of a vit al f act. Shields v. Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry , 526 S.W.3d 471, 480 (Tex. 2017)

. In determining whether4 disp osition decisio n. I n re B.R. , No. 02

- 19

- 0032 8

- C V, 2020 WL 3969556, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
A . Motion for Dismiss al
In his first is sue , D.T . argues that the juvenile cou rt abus ed its d i scretion by
den y ing his motion for dismiss al

. In his second issue, he com plains that the juvenile
court abused its discretion by finding that he violat ed a probation condition regarding
sex off ender treatment, relying on the same arg ume nt that he make s in his first issue

. 1. Background During the modificat ion portion of the Stat e ’ s case, t he juv enile court took judicial notice of th e pleadi ng s that had been f iled in the c ase .

legally sufficient evidence supp orts the findin g under rev iew, we mu st consider eviden ce favor able to the finding if a reasonable factfinder could and mu st di sregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas , 228 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Te x. 20 07); City of Keller v . Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 8 07, 827 (Tex. 2005). We indulge “every reasonable inference deducibl e fro m the evidence” in support of the challenged finding. Gunn v. McCo y , 554 S.W.3d 645, 658 (Tex. 2018). A ny thing more than a scintil la of evidence is legally su fficient to suppor t a finding. See 4Front Engineered Sol., Inc. v. Rosales , 505 S.W.3d 90 5, 909 (T ex. 2016)

. W hen reviewing an assertion that the evidence is factually insufficient to support a finding, we set aside the finding only if, after considering and weighing all t he pertinent record evidence, we determine that the credible evidence su pporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence, that the finding s hould be set aside and a new t rial order ed. Pool v. Ford Motor Co. , 7 15 S.W.2d 62 9, 635 (Tex. 1986) (op. on reh’g); Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 1 75, 176 ( Tex. 1986); Garza v. Alviar , 395 S.W.2 d 821, 823 (Tex. 1965).5 In its original petition , the State alleged that D.T. had committed an April
2018 agg ravated sexual assault of a chil d , and i n July 2018, the juvenile court place d
D.T. o n twenty

- four months ’ probatio n that contained both regular and sex

- offender
conditions

. C ondition (z) o f D.T. ’ s regular probation conditions re quired him to

att end, parti c ipate in, and successfully complete the sex offender treatment program. Although D.T. ’ s probation wa s set to end i n Ju ly 2020, it was made “ subject to
subs eq uent extensions an d additi ona l proceedings ” until he reached age 18

. I n February 2019, the State p etitio n ed to modify and extend D.T. ’ s disposition , alleging that in January 2019, D. T. had failed to complet e the sex o ffender treatment
pro gram , vi olating C ondition (z). D .T. stipulated that he had “ fail [ ed ] to complete S ex Offender Treatment Program to t he satisfac tion of the tr eatment p rovider , ” and in April 2019, the juvenile court entered a “ Modified O rder of Probation unt il July 1,
2020. ” Th e A pril 2019 order was originally titled “ Modified Order of Probat ion until
18 th Birthday, ” but “ 18 th Birth day ” was lined out and replaced by “ July 1, 2020, ” the

sam e ending date as D.T. ’ s origina l twenty

- fo ur months of prob atio n . T he A pril 2019 order added some con ditions

. 4 As in the earlier order, it stated
that D.T. would be “ su bject to sub seque nt extensions and additional proceedings until [he] is eighteen (18) years of age. ” Also as in th e ea rlier or der, D.T. was r equired to

4 The new conditions provided , among other t hings, that D.T. would be plac ed in the probation d epartment ’ s custod y , that he would remain in the juvenile detention center until placed in t he resid ential placement program , and that he would successfully complete the residential placement program

.6 attend, participate, and successfully complet e the sex offender treatment progra m . C o ndition # 21 of the a dditiona l s ex

- offender conditions

— the condition at issue in the instant ap pea l

— w as inclu de d verbatim from the earlier order and require d D.T. to compl ete treatm ent wit hin two years of disposition and show moderate progress as determined by the treatment provide r and supervising probation o fficer in the sex offender specific p rogram wi thin one year of begi nning the progra m . If it is not d etermined that [D.T.] has made adequate progress, a violation of probation may be charged again st [D. T

. ] T he r ec ord does not reflect that D.T. objected to a ny of the conditio ns or sought
clar i fica tion o f any of them.
A week la ter , D.T. was placed i n a juvenile “ Boot Camp, ” where he remained

u ntil January 20 20. After almost nine months, o n Janua ry 6, 2020, a juvenile probation

o ffi ce r req uested D. T

. ’ s release from boo t camp based on D.T. ’ s having “ s uc cessf ully completed his . . . stay at the placement facility. ”
Five months after D.T. ’ s release from boot camp and return to the sex

of fender treatment program, t he State fi l ed a n ew p e tition to modify and extend
D .T. ’ s disposition

. See J.M. , 2020 W L 39 87581, at *2 ( expla ining that modificat ion of ju

venile disposition is d ivided into two phases

— the first involves determining
whether the juvenil e h as violated his p r o bat ion and the second i nvolves de t ermining
the nec e ssary modification). In its peti tion , the State alleged that on May 21, 2020 , D.T. had violated C ondition #21 “ by fail ing to complete treatment within 2 years of dispo sition and/or sho w moderate pr ogre ss as determined by the treatment pr o vider7 and sup ervis ing probation officer in the sex offender specific program within one year

o f beginning the p rogram i n violation of a valid court order signed on April 3, 2019

. ”
The trial court held a hea r ing on the petition in September 2020

— a fter the July 1, 2020 expira tion of D.T. ’ s probation. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05( l ) (providing that as long as a motion for modification is filed before the supervision period ends,
the trial co urt has until the first an niversary of the probation peri od ’ s expiration date

to ex te nd the probation period). D.T. continued to participate in the sex

- offender
treatment program a f ter his probation expired

. A t the heari ng , D. T. pleaded not tru e but did not o therwise o bject or raise speci al excepti ons to the State ’ s petition

. 2. The State ’ s Modi ficat ion Evidenc e Dr. David Sabine , a clinical psychologist , licensed sex offender treatment provider , and director of t he Wichita County Juven ile Probation D ep artment ’ s Sex
Offender Treat ment Progr am , 5 testified that he ha d been s upervising D.T. He

e xplained that in the sex offender treatment program, offenders worked to
understand th eir sexual beh avior probl ems a nd the cognitive errors that suppor ted
such beh avio r and also worke d on rel apse prevention and the develo pme nt of

5 Dr. Sabine had been the dire ct or of Wic hi ta County ’ s sex of fender treatment program for twenty years

. He had a bachelor ’ s degree in religion and p hilosophy from Southwestern Nazarene University , a master ’ s degree in divi nity from N aza rene The olog ical Seminary, and a master ’ s degree i n p sy chology a nd d octorate in clin ical psychology from the University of Louisville

. He did his predocto ral fellowship at Ya le University and spent his postdoctoral year at Wich ita Falls Rehabilitation Hos pital in “ reha b medicine. ”8 empathy

. He required offen der s to attend group therapy and group counseling , to demonstrate an understanding of various cont ent area s, and to complete pol ygraph
examin ations

. Dr. Sabine stated t hat a n offender is considered f or graduation from
th e pr ogram “ w hen [ he ] comp let e [s] an exit interview that reflects [h is] master y ” of
the coursework.
Dr. Sabi ne stated that in his professional opin ion , D.T. had not completed th e

sex

- of fende r

- trea tment

- program portion of hi s probation

. He observed that D.T. had
failed to
d emonstrat [e] master y over his sexual impulses an d his sexual p reoccupation, both in ter ms of his thinkin g and his behavior

. At the time that this , um, expired, hi s term, there still are important things he needs to do in order to be safe.

. . . He ’ s making progress, but he ’ s not there yet, and there a re things in his May polygraph that wer e very concerning tha t we felt like w e n eeded to hold him o ver. Dr . Sa bine opined that there wa s a highe r ri sk that D.T. would reo ffend if he did not
continue in the program. He acknowledged that D.T. had passed five polygraphs in a

ro w. Dr. S a b ine testified th at D.T. “ came into the pr o gram in April of 2018, and was there for a time, went away to a reside ntial tr eatment for a time a nd then returned to us this last year, and he ’ s been in the p rogram ever since. ” Duri ng cross

- examinat ion,
Dr. Sabine elab orated, stating that D.T. went to the re sidential boot camp “ because of

treatment fail ure at o ne point

. ” The record reflects that D.T. was ordered to the boot camp on April 10, 2019.9 Dur ing cros s

- examinat ion, Dr. S a bi ne s tated that i n some areas D.T. had made
excellent pro gress but in others he had “ made very li ttle progress. ” He testified that
this did not amount to an average of “ moderate overa ll ” because “ this would not be

so mething yo u could average b ecau se t he thin gs wh ere he ’ s not made progress may be
consid ered high risk in terms of the future. ” H e opined that D.T. needed more time in the program. Brian Box, D.T. ’ s supervising p robation officer, tes tified tha t he and Dr. Sabi ne

m onit ored D. T. an d that D .T. had not completed the sex of fender treatment portion of his proba tion. On cr oss

- examinat ion, Box agreed that D.T. had participated in the

sex o f fender treatment program , had done th e things that were asked of hi m as par t of it , and had mad e some progress in the program

. At the conclusion of the State ’ s modification case, D.T. ’ s c ounsel moved f o r di smiss al of the petition

. He pointed out that t he State ’ s evidence sho wed th at D.T.
had made progr e ss and argued t he April 3, 2019 disposition ord ered D. T. to complete the treatment program within two years of that disposition, which would mak e the completion date not July 1, 2020, but April 3, 2021 , a date still in the future

. D.T

. ’ s

c o u nsel arg ued, “ He has two years to complete that treatmen t [ pro gram ]

. He ’ s made
progress. He hasn ’ t been removed from the program. Therefore . . . he cannot be
violated based on fa ilure to c omplete the program. ”10 The juvenile co urt denied D.T. ’ s motio n, sta ting tha t the April 2019 order did
not extend th e original two ye ars to A pril 2021 , that D.T. ’ s “ probation ran [until] July
1 of 2020 , ” and that there was sufficient evidence to d eny the motion.
3. Analysis of D.T. ’ s Fir st Issue
In his f irst iss ue, D.T. com plains that the State “ presented no evid ence whatsoever indicatin g a violation of a reasonable and lawful order of pro bation , ” relyi ng on the construction of C ondition # 21 that he presented to the juvenile court during the hearing.
We d isagree. No t wi thstanding D.T. ’ s argument that the plain language of
Condition #21 ga ve him a two

- year period from disposition (and the State ’ s argument on appeal that the condition ’ s plain language did not include the words “ modified ” or

“ amen d ed ” before t he disposition and therefore did not ext end his time to complete
the program into 20 21 ), the record reflects that D.T. failed to comply with the remaining portion of Condition #21: “ show moderate progress as determine d by the

treatmen t pr ovide r and supervi sing probation officer in the sex offend er specific program within one year of begin ning the program. ” 6 [Emphas e s added.]
D.T. began the program in April 2018

. In February 2019, ten months later, t he
State sou ght t o modify a n d ex tend his probation the first time o n the basis t ha t D.T.

6 T he State also r eminds us th at pr obation is a contract, see Dansby v. State , 448 S.W.3d 441, 447 (Tex. Crim . A pp. 20 14) , a nd that co ntr acts are to be construed based on their plain language

. Compass Bank v. Calleja

- Ah edo , 569 S.W.3d 104, 114 (Tex. 2018)

.11 had fail e d to complete the s ex o ffender t reatment p rog ram, referencin g C onditio n (z)

. 7 On April 3, 2019, D.T. stipulated to having violat ed this probation condition in
violation of the July 20 18 d isposition. T he juvenile court found tha t D.T. had violated his probation as alleged by the State and “ as amended at trial , ” 8 and it entered the
modified order of probation

. The order ’ s proba tion pe riod did not change , however

— its end date was still July 1 , 2020. D.T. t hen spent almost nine months (April 10, 2019

– January 6, 2020) in a boot camp treatment program and f ive more months in t he sex of fend er t rea tment program (January

–

May 2020) b e f ore the State
filed it s second petition for modification and t o extend disposition in June 2020

. The State alleged in it s second petition that on or about May 21, 2020 . . . [D.T.] did then and there f ail to comply with . . . [ C ondition] #2 1 by failing to complete treatment wi thin 2 ye a rs of disposition and/or show moderate progress as determined by the treatment provider and supervising probation officer in the sex offender specifi c pr ogram within one year of beginn ing the program in vio lat ion of a valid court order signed on April 3, 2 019

. Without re aching the partie s ’ construction argument s about the “ 2 years of disposition, ” see Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, we conclude that t he juvenil e court did not

7 In his appel l an t ’ s brie f, D. T. states that the State ’s February 22, 2019 petition to modify and extend dis position alleged “ that D.T. failed to complete the Sex Offender Treatm ent Program as r equi red by Co ndition 21. ” However, the State ’s February 22, 2 01 9 petition all eged a vio latio n of C ondition (z)

. Condition (z) and C ondition # 2 1 are not identical, although they both require attending , participating (making progress) , and completing the sex offender treatment progr am .
8 The re cord do es not re flect how the State ’s petition was amend ed at trial in the first modificati on.12 abuse its di scretion by denying D.T. ’ s motion for dismissal and by finding that D.T.
had viol ated the “ mode rate progress . . . within one year of beginning ” portion of the
condition 9 in light of D.T. ’ s removal from th e program and plac ement in boot camp
and Dr. S a bine ’ s and Box ’ s testimonies that D.T. had not made ad equat e progress to discharge him from the pro gram . W e ove r rule D.T. ’ s first issue and turn to the
evidence he presented before reaching his secon d issue.
4. D.T. ’ s Modifi cati on Evid ence D uring D.T. ’ s case, Dr. Sa bine testified that D.T. had actively participated in
the sex offender treatment program an d “ had tried to be honest and open and straightforward

. ” Dr. S a bine credite d D.T

. ’ s ea rnestness a nd s incerity but not ed that
D.T. had “ disclosed many thi ngs in the polygraphs tha t are very concerning. ” Some of
th e s e disclosed items incl uded D.T. ’ s “ unusual sexual interest . . . in horses, ” h is compulsi ve masturbation, his ra pe fantas ies, and his admitting t o ha ving thought
ab out his vict im “ as re cently as May. ” D.T. had also admitted t o tas t ing and eating his
own feces.

9 To the exten t that D.T. ’s probation had already been modified once based on a similar but differently wo rded and numbered condition , see Rains v . State , 678 S. W.2d 308, 309

– 10 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth 198 4, pet. re f’d) (quoting Ro g

ers v. State , 6 40 S.W.2d 248, 2 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ) , D.T. did not raise any due process objections in the ju venile court, and he does not raise any on appeal. See Tex. R . App. P. 33

. 1; In re C.D.H. , 273 S.W.3d 421, 425 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Texa rkana 2008, no pet.) ( stating that w i thin the context of juv enile probation revocation hearings, a due proc ess complai nt must have been raised in t he tria l court to preserve error for app ellat e revie w )

.13 Dr . S a bine testified that D.T. attended group therapy with other adjudicated youth sex offend ers eve ry Tuesday and T hurs day

. Dr. S a b ine said that he also held family meeti ngs with D.T. and his par ents that would last from 10 to 15 minut es “ if everything is kind of going along ” or could last up to 45 minutes when the family h ad

concerns . Dr. Sabi ne testified that “ from early on ” he had suspected that D.T. had aut ism
and that he had s po ken with D.T. ’ s family about D.T. ’ s auti sm issue “ a number of
time s , ” but for the first two years, Dr. Sabine ’ s treatment summaries did not reflect
his su spicion. He stated that an autism evaluation did not rev eal evidence of autism,
but that ev a luation was based on forms completed by D.T. ’ s parents, and t hose forms

“ came back negative. ” Dr. Sa bine explained that the autism evaluation had required
D.T. ’ s parents to have “ open ness and ins ight into those behaviors in order to fin d [D.T. ] p ositive ” for auti sm. Dr. S abine testified that before D.T. went to boot camp, 10 he had spent hours trying to find treatment facilities that trea ted children wit h both sexual offending
b ehaviors and autism

- related beha viors and “ looked up re sea rch on how to t re at k id s who have sex offense behaviors and autism ” beca use he was concerned that D.T. might not find the right placement. However, until May 2020, none of Dr. S a bine ’ s

10 Dr. Sabine ac knowledged that a b oot camp co unse lor w ho had treated D.T. had been arrested for chil d pornography but said that he did not know the counsel or ’ s sentence. D .T. ’ s mother test ified that the boot camp counse lor had p leaded guilt y a nd accepted a f ifty

- year sentence and that she had serious con cerns about the boot camp

.14 treatment summaries acknowledged that D.T. w as autistic . I n t he May 2020 summa ry, Dr. Sabine s tate d, “ [D.T. ] clearly demonstrates, in my opinion, evidence of autism
spect rum disorder, and this should be taken into account in terms of treatment. ”
Dr. S a bine said that D.T. had maintained h is grades a nd m andatory f ami ly parti c ipa tion but that “ what ’ s been especially ha r d is that part about the imp ulses and

t he thoughts that he ’ s acknowledged. ” D r. Sa bine opined that because D.T. suffered
from autism spectrum d isorder , it wa s d if fic ult for him to master some of th e

tr eatment concept s because of the “ sor t of bla ck and white sort of concrete way that [ h e ] thinks ” and D.T. ’ s social

- interaction and s ocial

- connection problems

. Dr. Sabine stated, “ Children who don ’ t have autism ma y hav e a n easier roa d to empathy , ” while
auti stic offenders might not understand the normal connection between their
behavior and harm to the vic tim

. Dr. Sabine explained that D.T. struggled with
emotion al inte llig ence , with unders tanding the conse quences of his be havior , and with
in ter a cting with othe rs. He exp lained that because of t his additional autism

- rel ated risk factor, D.T. required more time in the program, the goal of which w as to help
D.T. “ reach [ ] an accept able level of s af ety f or himself and the com munity. ”
Dr. Sabine said that he did not have a formal written treatment pl an for D.T.

“ other than his ps ych evals ” and quarterly up dates “ of where we ’ re going an d what

we ’ re planning to do next. ” He said , “ [ I]n a sense, those

. . . quarterly rep orts represent [D.T. ’ s] treatment plan. ” He stated that the quarterly summaries conta ined
D.T. ’ s relapse prevention plan , which w as “ to work on thoughts and behaviors that15 have incl ined hi m toward offending and to reduce those behav iors , ” and tha t D.T. could recite the plan “ verbatim

. ” Dr. S a bine did not have a s pec ific document setting

ou t the relapse prevention plan but stated, “ [I]t would be very easy to generate

. I

cou ld give y ou a paragraph

. That ’ s a bout how much i t would take. ”
D r. Sabine acknow ledged that to c omply with D.T. ’ s probation, D.T. ’ s family had been living in separate hous eholds since early 2018 , with D.T. and his father living in one household and his mother and the victim in another . Dr. Sabine stated
tha t “ every effort has been mad e to reunify the family short of sendi ng [ D.T. to a reuni fied ] home prematurely. ” When aske d to list his efforts, he st ated that he had met with the family and expressed to them his concerns and things that had to chan ge in D.T. ’ s thoughts and b ehav ior for him to safely return to a reunifi ed home. On

cros s

- examination, when the prosecutor asked why D.T. had not been reunited with
his whole family, Dr. Sabine replied, “ Be cause . . . his victim is in the home an d he
hasn ’ t gotten to the place in tr eatment wher e he can safely b e in the home. ”
Dr. Sabine u sed movies with his group therapy patients. I n 2020, h e showed
them “ Searching for Bobby Fischer, ” a n inety

- minute movie that required two gro up sessions to watch. He al so showed th em “ Call of the W ild, ” another two

- ses sion viewing

. He agreed that D.T. had seen the 2012 version of “ Les Miserables , ” a nother

two

- session movie, twice becau se of how long D .T. had been in the prog ram and

“ because that ’ s an especially importa nt f ilm for [the ] kid s to see
. ” W hen questioned
about “ Les Miserables, ” Dr. S a bi ne ackn owledged that there was an implied rape16 scene a n d that prostitution was implied and discussed directly but said that “ [i]t ’ s part of the exploitation we d iscuss in

. . . c overing

. . . the substance of the film. ” In explaining his use of movies with his group ther apy patients, Dr. Sa bine stated,
One of the things that ’ s m ost difficult with these guys is kind of getting past their defenses. They ’ re very defended boys wh o come with a lot of
r esis tance. And one of the things we know, going all the way back to the parables of Jesus, is that stories have the ability to work ben eath those defenses to help us gain a se nse of empathy and understanding tha t doe s not come throug h sort of being preache d at and lectured at in a didactic setting. So interspersing session after session after session of bearing down a nd doing disclosures and all the other things we do, to bring this in is a

-- in my view, a very he lp ful tool. And so we dis cuss the movie. We dis cuss what they should take from it or what they could take from it. We try to get them to develop critical thi nking skills to say t his is what went on, this is what ’ s impo rtant, and this is how it relate s. W e always come bac k to ho w does it relate to y ou, specifically, as a person who ’ s acted out sexually and is a sex offender? L.T., D.T. ’ s mother, testified that since D.T. had been on pro bation, he had
done ever ything he had been asked to do

. She stat ed that he had progress ed as far as the progr am ’ s standards went but opined that in two years, the program “ hasn ’ t hel p ed him any. ” She expressed her concerns about t he type s of things D.T. had been exposed to in the program , stating,
The ver y first group he attended, h e ca lled me when he got home and said, Mama, do you know people have sex with animals ? My son is very easily swayed. He ’ s very easily p ersuaded to do th ings. Um, he ’ s autistic

. He ’ s a follower, and he does wh at other people d o. Um, he attempts to be friend s wi th everyb ody, and if that includes doing somethi ng

-- . . . If he thinks doin g som ething stupid will make him a new friend, then he ’ ll17 do it. But th at ’ s his mentality. H e ’ s

– He ’ s a wonderful young man

. He made a stup id mistake. L.T. al so s tated that she had been un aware that D r. S a bine had diagnosed D.T.
with autism because Dr. S a bine had told her and D.T. ’ s father th at D.T. was not

a utistic. L.T. s aid that she had urged D r. Sabine to test D. T. for autism for two years

. From her pers pective, D.T. ’ s treatment pro gram had not changed with the autism
di agnosis , and he had not been diagnosed w ith autism prior to his boot

- camp placem ent
. L.T. stated th at w hen D.T. ’ s pr obation officer had looked for a pl acem ent for hi m, she and D.T. ’ s fathe r were “ led to believe that they could not find a suitable place for him that would accept him wit h autism and the crime he had been accus ed
of. Then they determined that he could att end this boot camp because he did no t ha ve autism

. ”
L.T. testified that one of D.T. ’ s sex

- offender probation terms was that he could
not cha n ge sex offender treatment provid e rs and said “ yes ” when asked whether her
understand ing was “ that he either sin ks or swims with Dr. Sabin e ’ s program. ” She
agre ed on cross

- examination that she was not an expert in sex offender treatm ent , but she disagreed with Dr . Sabine ’ s treatm ent for D.T. She acknowledged that she had

vo iced those concerns to D .T. but d isagr eed that thi s might impe de D.T. ’ s treat ment
progress
. A fter putting on his modification evidence , counsel for D.T. again argu ed t hat
D.T. had not violated C ondition #21 because he had made moderate progre ss and18 that the “ two yea rs from the date of dis position ” did not expire “ until April of 2021 ”

eve n thou gh the April 2019 order expressly terminated D.T. ’ s probation on July 1,
2 020. He ass erted,
The State wrote the term. They could have crafted it any way they wanted t o. They could have said complete s e x offe nder tr eatment by July of 2020. They did not. They could have crafted it in many ways. But the way it ’ s writ ten, he ’ s not in vio lation

. He ’ s made moderate pr ogress. And
ac cording to Dr. S abine , if he just cont inues on keeping on, he ’ s go ing to get w her e he wants him to be. The prosecutor then responded that D.T. had to show moderate progress in all areas
of his sex of fender treatment pro gram, not just one are a , and that D.T. had f ailed to
do so wi thin the allotte d time : “ He ’ s not d one that wit hin the year . He ’ s not done that
wit hin the two years. ”
5. Analysis of D .T. ’ s Second Issue
D.T. raises the sa me argu ment abo ut Condition #21 ’ s “ wit hin 2 years o f disposition ” lan g u age in his second issue as he did in his first

. For the same reason s

set out in our re view of D.T. ’ s firs t issue, but based on our review of all of the parties ’
modificat ion evidence , we conclude that the tria l court did no t abuse its di scretion by finding that D.T

. violated Conditi on #21 and by denying his motion for dismissa l

. W e overrule D.T. ’ s second issue.
B
. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Extension
In his thi rd issue, D. T. argues that th e trial court abused it s discretion b y extending his probation u ntil he turns eigh teen because the evidenc e is legally and19 factu ally insuffici ent to support the e xtension. We incorporate the modification
evidence a bove and now revi ew both parties ’ dispos ition evidence

. 1. Social Histories 11
Befo re the disposition he aring began, the juvenile court took j udicial noti ce of
all of the contents of its fi le e xcept for a supplemental social history fi led on September 1 8, 2020, which D.T. ’ s cou nsel had not received

. See Tex. Fam. Cod e Ann. § 54.04(b) (stating that on or before the second da y befo re t he disposition hearing, the

c ourt shall provide the child ’ s attorney and pro secutor with access to all writ ten matter to be considered by the court in dispositio n).
D. T. ’ s Ju ne 2018 social history contained D.T. ’ s statement about the original
offense

— t hat he had pulled as ide the six

- year

- old victim ’ s underwear and licke d her female sexual organ with his tongue

— b ecaus e he was cu rious

. It also s tated that he
had n ot displayed any behav iora l prob lems at school or in detention , that he made
goo d gra d es, that he participated in j ujit su and wrestling, that he was active in h is
ch urch , and that he had been respe ct ful and coopera tive with the juvenil e probat ion depa rtment
. Dr. Sabine con ducted a ps y cho logical evaluation of D.T. in 2018 and diagnos ed
h im with attention deficit hyperactive disorder, hyperactive

- impu lsive type

- mi ld. Dr.

11 Under Secti on 54.0 4, at a dispo sition hearing, the juv enile court “ may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court e mployees, gu ard ians ad litem

. . . , or professional consultants in addi tion to the tes timon y of witnesses. ” Tex. Fa m. Cod e Ann. § 54.04(b).20 Sabine ’ s O ctobe r 10, 2018 addend um no ted that D.T. ’ s pa rents had comp leted the Social Responsive ness Scale, 2 nd Ed ition (SRS

- 2), the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GA DS), and the Gilliam Asper g er ’ s Disorder Sc ale , 3 rd Edition (G ARS

- 3) and that
all three test res ults “ were within normal lim its. ” He also i ncluded the re sults of D.T. ’ s Ro rschach I nkblot Test, which were “ consistent with [D.T. ’ s ] presentation i n te rms of his limited interest in others, and limited ability to form close attachments, as well as [] having d ifficulty identif ying with the thoughts and feelin gs o f others. ” The juv enile court ordere d D.T. detained for a proba ble cause hearing i n Ma rch 2019

. D.T. ’ s suppleme ntal social history from March 2019 reflected that on September 13, 2018, D .T. had been refe rred for a probation vi olation after he provided “ deceptive ” resp onses to a polygr a ph examinati on. The September
2018 prob atio n department reco mmendation also sta ted that , regarding the September 13, 2018 polygraph, D.T. had “admitt ed to touching fi ve or six year old
fema les vagina ’s [ sic] over their clothing whi le at martial arts classes ” and that in his
post

- pol ygraph inter view , he admitted that prior to being placed on probation, he had

seen “ a rape scene on a Law and Order TV sho w. Af terwards, he tried acting it out
wi th his adjudic ated victim. He said he pi n ned her to the wa ll and ‘dry humped ’
her

. ” 12 D.T. also disc lose d that he had his dog lick his penis during the week before

12 The July 2018 order stated, “ The District Attorney ag rees not to p ursue any modificat ion, enhancement, or new ch arges for an y c onduct involvin g [D.T.] and [his victim ] if occurring prior to April 10, 2018. ”21 his Sep tember 2018 pol ygraph. I n a Dece mber pol ygraph, D .T . again “ admitted to

tou ching [the] do g inappropriately. He sai d that he touched the dog ’ s vagina and playe d with her nipples. ”
O n January 31, 2019, D r. Sabine re m oved D.T. from the sex

- offender

treatment program and recommended pla cing him in boot camp b e cause [D.T.] do es not seem to be connected to shame an d seems to enjoy t alking about his offenses and does so in a very m atte r of fact way. It was noted that though being quite intelligent, [D.T.] has very little insight and no emo tional connection to his behavior and it s consequences . It was also noted tha t [D.T. ’ s] sexual fantasies are devia nt and involve [his
v

ictim]. He also has fanta sized about rape. Residential treatment is recommended so that [D.T.] can deal with his i ssues i n a more compreh e nsive wa y and maintain safety for the community in the mea ntime. 2. T he State ’ s Dispositi on Evidence
T he prosecutor re offere d Dr . Sabine ’ s testimony, and Box, D.T. ’ s probation officer, recommended that D.T. be extended on pr obation until his eighteenth birthday an d t hat he c ontinue sex

- offender treatment with Dr. Sabine

. Box said th at D.T. had made adm issi ons to him and his su pervi sor about “ fantasizing about sex , anal sex with horses,

. . . masturbat [ ing] with h is [ victim ’ s] pil low . . . and fantasiz[ ing]
about havin g sex wit h her. ”
Box stat ed that D.T. had bee n deemed a treatm ent failure when he was sent to boot camp but that since h is return , “ he has not been deemed a treatment failure. ”
When as ked during cro ss

- examination about wh ether Dr. S abine was qualified t o d iagnose autism, Box said, “ I can ’ t sp eak to his qualifications. ” He a cknowledged that22 Dr. Sabine had cancelled fa mily meetings and said that he was not aware of any change s in Dr. Sabine ’ s treatment plan s for D. T. since de termining that D.T. h ad

aut ism.
3. D
. T. ’ s Disposition Evidence Before beginni ng his c ase, D.T. informed the juvenile court that he was asking
for a rul ing of “ no disposition ” and that he would be pu tting on evid ence of
alternative treatme n ts availab le to him if no dispo sition was ordered

. D. T

. ’ s father D.E .T., a retired police of fice r, stated that D.T. had been in martial arts training since he was three years old , tha t D.T. was a straight

- A student,
and th at D.T. went to boxing practice ev ery week day

. He st ated that D.T. had some wrestling sk ills that t he f am ily hoped would someday result in a college scholarship

. D.E.T. also testified that as a term of D.T. ’ s pro bation, he an d D.T. lived in one
hou sehold whil e D.T. ’ s mothe r and D .T. ’ s victim lived in another h ousehold and that they had done s o for “ a li ttle over two year s . ” D.E.T. stated that he and L.T. had done everything required by D.T. ’ s probati on . He also stated that al t hough D.T. had
attended each of his group sessions , Dr. Sabine “ usually ” gave no excuse when he
cancell ed s essions. D.E .T. cited as an ex amp le that Dr. Sabine had missed a group
meeti ng within the last mont h without ex plana tion

. He o pined that he a nd L.T. could
pro vi de a better trea tment program fo r D. T. than Dr. Sabine

. D.E .T. stated that he had not known D. T. was aut isti c until Dr. S a bine told
them “ almost a year

- and

- a
- half, two year s ago ” and that h e thought it should hav e23 been purs u ed bu t that it was n ot. D.E. T. said that Dr. Sabine ’ s May 2020 treatment
summary was t he first time Dr. Sabine had s aid more than that he ju st suspected
autism

. On cross

- examina t ion, D.E.T. said that the house in Okla homa where L.T. and
the victi m c urrently lived , an d where he and L.T. wanted to reunify the family, had
vid eo cameras everywhere b ut the bathroom and closet

. He said that the vict im would
be safe from molest ation because he and L. T. would supervis e D.T. and ne ver let
D.T. and hi s victim be alone together.
D.T. also offered character te stim ony from a county commissioner who had gone to church with D.T. ’ s family f or the last ten year s , an attorney who had coached
D .T. in judo , D.T. ’ s hea d judo coac h , and D.T. ’ s j u jitsu instructor , each of whom
knew the fami ly o n a personal level and believed L.T. and D.E.T. would provide a committed course of rehabilitation for D.T.
On cross

- exa minati on, t he j u jitsu instructo r agreed with the prosecutor ’ s
summary that D.T. was “ actively learning how to use advanced techniques to subdue
p eople and wr estling them and keeping them where he wants them, ” but he added
that the p r imary focus was self

- de f ense and t hat D.T. was a “ whit e belt, still a
be ginn er . ”24 Rose Boehm, a licens ed p rofess ion a l counselor , testified both as a friend of
D. T. ’s family and as an expert
. 13 Among other thin gs, in he r 50 y ea rs of practice,
Boehm h ad provided individual and grou p thera py for ch il d and sexual abuse victims
and th ei r families and h ad perf ormed sex offender evaluations , including w orking for Denton County ’ s Children ’ s Advoca c y Center in sex offen der treatment

. Boe hm had work ed with autistic chi ldren who were sex offenders. She s tated
that autistic chil dre n wh o are sex offenders require individual ther apy instead of group
th erapy because , based on the way most groups a r e set up, auti stic children “ are
expo sed to the des criptions of othe r people ’ s sexual offenses, and they ca n be quite impressionable ” a nd su bjec t to suggestion i n g r o u p s e t t i n g s . When she worked for
Dent on County in sex offender treatment a t the Child ren ’ s Advoc acy Center, the t wo

yea r pro gram s he used resulted in 90

- to

- 95 percent successful completion by the
childr en in the progra m wh o we re incest offenders

. Boehm opin ed that group therapy was not an effective way to treat D.T. Dr.
Sabine ’ s use of the 20 12 vers ion of “ Les Miserables ” t o tre at juvenile sex of fenders
concerned her because of the film ’ s dep iction s of s exual intercourse and p ro stitution

. Bo ehm stated that a treatment program for a child sex offen der should be
wri tten down , shared with the parents , shared with the c hild, and shared w ith the

13 Bo ehm ha d a bachelor ’ s degree in preclini cal psychol ogy and a master ’ s degree in clinical ps ychology from the U niversity of North Texas. She had also bee n a registered cli ni cal psychologist in Austra lia and stated that she had t estified as an exper t seve ral hundred times

.25 pr obation officer

— o n hard copy

— a nd that the pro gram should be p er iodically
revised a s goals were accomplished. She stated that a relapse prevention plan could be

“ q uite elaborate ” because the offend er and therapi st sh ould identify prob lematic
situat ions and feel ings and ways to exit thos e situations. It was something th e offender should carry around with him so that in a novel or uncertain situat ion, he

cou ld refer to the p lan an d develop a n exit s trate gy . Boehm opined that D.T. “ probably needs some body who sp e cial izes in working with high level aut istic children who ’ s a lso familiar with some of these other
behavior problems that go along wit h that ” and that just c ontinu i ng D .T. in Dr.
S abine ’ s program of group therapy, pol ygraphs, and family meeti ngs would no t re sult
in his rehabilitation

. She stated that the best way to handle family reunification was
how Denton Co unty did it: “ The children are returned to the fam i ly after an offense
like this as soon as ther e is a safety plan and as soon as there a re a larms on the doors, and that usually was within a few days of th [e] h earing. ” She was concerned about
D.T. ’ s family ’ s b eing separated for so l ong becaus e “ any child in that kind of
pr ogram [] needs a very, very stable home situation and nee ds b oth those parents there to help h im. ” Boehm said that it would be unethical f or he r, as a family frie nd , to be
D.T. ’ s coun selor but that she coul d help his family find resou rces to treat him. During c ross

- examinati on, when asked whe ther there would be any supervi sing
authorit y over D.T. if he w ere immediately dropped from probation , Bo e hm replied26 th at his parents L. T. and D.E.T., who “ did n ’ t know ab out [the abu se] before , ” w ould
monitor hi m . L.T. , who had been employe d by a co unty jail until an inmat e assault rendered her permanently disabled, testified that if the juvenile court ruled “ no disp osition, ” th e family would reu nite in Okl ahoma , where they had alarm ed the d oors of D.T. ’ s a nd
the victim ’ s bedroom s and had install ed c ameras throughout the house

. L.T. testified
about her own experience as an incest victim and st ated that D.T. ne e ded intense , lifetime rehabil itat ion. She had a lready made appointments for D.T. with a psychiatrist

to m on itor his medicati on and a ps ycholog ist to modify his behavior and to hel p him
understand the co nsequences of his ac tions and prevent further actions ; Boehm had
approv ed both prov iders

. L.T. stated, “ I know that [D.T.] is mentally ill, an d I think that he needs help. I don ’ t think he needs pu nis hment. ” She opined that the progress D.T. had made was at boot camp , not in D r. Sabine ’ s p rogram.
L. T. stated that the fam ily meet ings with Dr. Sabine had only been around
15 minu tes once a month and were sometimes cancelled by him without notice

. She
testified that it c oncerned her that they were w atching movies during g roup therap y and th at she had wat ched “ L es Miserables ” and “ was sickened by it. ” She s tate d that D.T. was very impressionable and that the movie was inappropriate because it

“ g lorified ” pro stitution and ra pe and the “ perpe trato r laugh ed and got away with i t
. ”
L.T. stated th at she would “ abso lutely ” do everything in her power to m ake sure D.T. was completely rehabilitat ed and a productive member of society.27 On cross

- examinat ion, whe n asked whether s he had taken any initia tive to see k
additiona l counseling for D .T., L.T. said that she had been “ told t hat [she] couldn ’ t be cause that would violate his probation because it would appear that [she] was
attemp ting to change providers. ” 14
D. T. reca lled Box, who agreed th a t Dr. Sabi ne was the p rimary sex

- offende r

treatm ent provider and who acknowledged that if D.T. ha d ha d another sex

- offender treatment provider during his probation, “ [t]here might be a problem between Dr.
S a bine and the other treatm ent provider, ” a nd in s u ch a case, the probat i on department woul d defer to Dr. Sabine. H e also agreed that i t was entirely within Dr.
Sabine ’ s discretion , “ in conjunction wit h the D epartment, ” as to whether D.T. had completed hi s treatment or sh owed moderate progress. On cro ss

- examination,
ho wever, he stated that D.T . could have sought additional , non

- sex

- offender,

co unseling

.

14 One of D.T. ’s sex

- offender probation conditions stated, J uv enil e shall not change treatment pr ograms. All treatmen t w ill be provided by the sex offender treatment provider approved by the J uvenile Board and on ly said t reatment provider will be considered by the Juv enile Probat ion Department in evaluating said juvenil e ’ s compliance or non compliance with th e terms and con ditions of said juvenile ’ s probation and/or su ccessful completion of tre atment. A no ther cond ition stated that he would have to sign waivers of confidentiality to allow his supervising pro batio n officer to communicate “ with other pro fessionals i nvo lved in juv enil e ’ s supervision and treatment, and to all ow all professio nals involved to com municate with each other. This will include a release of information to the therapist of the vi ctim(s). ”28 4. The P arties ’ Arg ume nts and the Juvenile Court ’ s Conclusion
D.T. ’ s counsel argued that the State had no t offered D .T. a pro gr am that wou ld
allow him to be successful and that the juvenile cou rt should issue an o rder of no disposition , allow th e family to reunite , and allow D.T. to undergo the treatment

a rranged by his mother

. The prosecutor replied tha t instead o f finding D .T. a counselor du ring his probation , his parents had allowed him to be tra ined in j u jitsu , stating, “ You have a
sex offend er w ho is lear ni ng how to grapp le and hold peo ple down. ” He argued that
L.T. ’ s treatment plan for D. T. was “ all based on s peculation , ” and h e as ked the juvenile court to continue D.T. ’ s proba tion u n til h is eighteenth birthday.
T he ju venile court found that D.T. had violat ed his probation , found that D.T.
needed rehabilitation and that he and the pu blic needed protec tion, and signed a n order of dispositi o n and mod ifie d order o f probatio n to run until D.T. ’ s eighteenth
birth day. In a letter to the parties , th e juvenile cour t express ed that it was “ torn betwee n th e unifi cati on of [D.T. ’ s] family and pro tecting the vic tim ” and that it was

un willing t o release D.T. from probation based on the nature of D.T. ’ s disclosures

— particularly about his victim

— a nd Dr. Sabi ne ’ s testimony t hat “ alt ho ugh [D .T.] is making progress in some ar eas, he is still high risk to reoffend. ” The juvenile court then stated , I als o be lieve that [D.T.] is not receiving all the treatment that he needs in order t o fully rehabilitate. I am goin g to ex tend [D.T. ’ s] pro bation until his 18th b irthday and h e is t o remain in the sex offender treatment29 program with Dr. Sabine, as I am bound by S ection 54.0405

. . . to order treatment wit h a program specified by the Depa rtment. [ 15 ] I will also order tha t [D.T. ] begin counselin g wit h a health profess ional that
s peci aliz e s in au tism. I e x pect the autism counselor and Dr. Sabine to cooperate in [D .T. ’ s] treatment and develop a plan that is tailored to [D.T. ’ s] unique needs and inc reases his li kel ihood of su ccess t hrough the progra m, including a determin ation of wh ether gr o up or individual counseling is more suited for [D.T.]. The Department is orde red to provide quar terly reports to the Court regarding that plan and [D.T. ’ s ] progression in the program. Dr. S abine w ill still be the primary care provider a nd make t he ultim a te decision s abou t his care. In addition, the Department is ordered to develop a p lan for reunification of [D.T. ’ s ] fam ily. They are to work with [ D.T. ’ s ] family to develop a safety

- based pla n that permits [D.T .] t o live in the household again a s s oon a s the treatment pr oviders determine [] it is safe for him to return. If [D.T.] su cces sfully completes the sex offen der treatment program before his 18th bir thday, the Court will entertain a motio n for early re lease fr om probation. 5. Ana lysis of D.T. ’ s Third I ssue In his final issue, D.T. asserts tha t no evidence was pres ente d that continuing his probation as it existed at the time of the hearing would result in any further progress in hi s rehabi litation and that such a continu a tion was c ontra ry to the

reco mmen dations of Boehm, his expert witn ess . In r ecou nting the fl aws in Dr.
S a bine ’ s program, however, D.T. ignores the juvenile court ’ s explanation of its

15 Section 54.0405 (c) req uires psychol ogical coun seli ng a s a probat ion condition for a child sex offender to be with an indiv idual or organizatio n that: ( 1) provides sex offender treatment or counseling ; (2) is specified by the l ocal juvenile probation d epartment supervising the child; and (3) meets mini mum stand ar ds of c ounseling established by the local juv enile probation depa rtment. Tex. Fam. Co de A n n. § 54.0 405 (c)

.30 decision, in which it o rdered the probati on departme nt to devel op a reunificat ion plan
and to provide quarterly reports to th e court regarding a trea tmen t plan custom ized to
D.T. ’ s unique ne eds.
C onsider ing all of the above under the applicable legal and factual sufficien cy standar ds of review, the ju veni le co urt had ample subs tantive and probative evide nce upon which to draw its conclusio n s t hat D.T. was still at a high risk of reoffending if
he fail ed to complete sex offender treatment and that hi s proba tion should t here fore
be continued at le a st until h is su ccessful completio n of the sex offender treatment program, at which point he coul d mo ve for early release from probation. 16 See Shields , 526 S.W.3d at 480; P ool , 715 S.W.2d at 635; C .C. , 2018 WL 1865 8 0 4, at *3.
Accordi ngly, we overrule D.T. ’ s final iss ue. III. Conclusion Having overruled all of D.T. ’ s issues, we affirm the j uvenile co urt ’ s judgment.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice
Delivered: October 28, 2021

16 As the factfinder, t h e juvenile court was the sole judge of the witness es ’ credibilit y and the weight to be given their testi mony . Gol den Ea gle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2003)

.