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

NO. 03- 06-00433 -CV

In the Matte r of L. T . H.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 4,90 7 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The juvenile c ourt committed L .T.H. to the Tex as Youth Commi ssion (“TYC”) afte r L .T.H. pl ea d ed t ru e t o a probation violation. I n two points of error , L .T.H. asse rts that the orde r modify ing his disposition failed to specific al l y s t ate the r easons f or the modification and that the district court abuse d its discretion in committ ing L .T.H. to TYC. We aff irm the order
. BACK GR OUND On Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u rt , a f t e r f i n d i n g t h a t L
. T
. H
. h a d e n g a g e d in delinquent conduc t by

committing the off

ense of assault, p lace d L .T.H. on probation for nine months. On September

7, 2005, the State moved to modify the disposition, allegingthat L .T.H. had violated a condition of hi s probation by failing to report to his probation off icer . On Octobe r 6, af

ter hear ing e vidence on the State’s motion, the juvenile court modified the dispositi on, extending the probation until May

2006.2 As a ter m and condition of his probation, L
. T
. H. wa s require d to be inside the residenc e of his g randpa

rents betwe en the hour s of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. On Fe bruar y 28, 2006, the State moved to modify the disposition, allegingthat L .T.H. fa iled to comply with this conditi on from Nove mber 1, 2005 to the date of t he mot ion. At the J uly 6, 2006 modification hea ring , L .T.H. pleade d true to the State’s a lleg ation.

F o l l o w i n g L
. T
. H
. ’ s p l e a , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u rth e ar d e v i d e n c e f

r o m C a t hy M c C l a u g h e r t y,
a ca seworke r with the Tra vis County

J uvenile Probation De partment. McCl aug herty testified that the depa

rtment’s re commendation wa s commitment to TYC. McCl aug herty explained the depart ment’s re asoning to the juvenile cour t. After L .T.H. wa s place d on probation, L .T.H. had first spent 90 da

y s in the depar

tment’s “I mpac t Progr am,” whic h is a “brie f beha vior modification prog ram.” Upon completion of that prog ram, L .T.H. wa s allowed t o re t u rn home. Howeve r, ac cordingto McClaug herty , L .T.H. “ha s absconde d at least twice for a period of time.” Additionally , the “f

amily has a history

of movi n g without notify ing the Probation Depa rtment.” McClaug herty

continued,
We’ ve . . . h a d p sy c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns c omp le te d, a tte mpt e d to e ng a g e the fa mil y in s e rv ic e s th ro ug h MHM R. We’ ve a lso a tte mpt e d to ho ok him up , if y ou wi ll, wi th Southwest Key

trac kin g t o improve his acc ountability . And we’ ve also tried a n elec tronic monitor to improve his acc ountability and to g et him to stay

at home.
All of these e ffor

ts, McClaug herty

testified, wer e unsucc essful in kee ping L .T.H. at home. When a sked by the juvenile cour t if there w ere any

other re asonable eff

orts that might be take n b y

the de pa rtme nt, Mc Cla

ug he rt y re pli e d, “ No ne tha

t I ’m awa re of a t thi s tim e . We ’v e a lso3

attempted to staff

him for our I ntensive Supervision Probation prog ram. And he was de clined base d
on a history of both him and his fa mily not cooper ating and not following throug h with probation.” McClaug herty

also testified t hat s he believed commi tment to TYC would be in the child’s best intere st beca

use L .T.H. “ha s difficulty

functioning in the community
. We ha ve not bee n able to g et him to e ng ag e in pr obation.” McClaug herty also believe d that commitment to TYC was in “ the community ’s best interest” beca use L .T.H.’s “off

enses speak to the fac t that he appea rs to be a dang er to other

people in the c ommunity .” On cr oss-examina tion, McClaughe rty testified that the off

enses to which she was ref err ing w ere two misdemeanor a ssaults involvi ng L .T.H.’s “ peer s at school.” L .T.H. had ne ver be e n a c c us e d o f a

fe lony of fe ns e , a nd L .T .H .’ s la st a lle g e d mis de me ano r a ssa ult oc c ur re d p ri or to his probation, in Fe bruar

y 2005. McClaug herty also acknow ledg ed that L .T.H. had be en diag nosed as suffe ring from mild mental reta rdation and “ cannibis abuse .” On re direc t, McClaug herty testified t h at b ecause of L .T.H.’s “ absconde r status,” L .T.H. had be en unava ilable and out of contac t w ith the de partment for approximately

six months duri ngthe pr e vio us y e ar. Th e juv e nil e c ourt inq uir e d a s to the re a so n th e de pa rtme nt w a s una

ble to fi ndL .T .H. , an d M cC lau ghert y ex pl ain ed t hat du ri ng th e per io d o f t im e wh en h e abs conde d, a tte mpt s
wer e made to locate the f amily at their last known a ddress. The depar tment discovere d that the fa mil y ha d mo ve d b ut w a s una

ble to o bta in a

ne w a dd re ss. L .T.H.’s gra

ndmother was prese nt at the hea ring but, when g iven the opportunity by the juvenile cour

t to spe ak, declined the opportunity . L .T.H.’s unc le, who had be en conside red a s a p o s s i b l e p l ac em en t , wa s n o tp re s en tat t h e h ea ri n g.4 At the c on c lus ion of the he ari ng , th e juv e nil e c ourt c omm itt e d L .T .H . to TY C. T his appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N Specif icity of the juvenile court’s or der I n his f irst point of err or, L .T.H. asse rts that the juvenile cour t’s order was de ficient beca use it failed to spec ifically state the rea sons f

or the modification of the prior disposition. Section 54.05(i) of the family code provides, “The court shall specific ally state in the orde r its rea sons for modify ing the dispositi on and shall fur nish a copy of t he order to the child.” T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(i) (W est Supp. 2006). Section 54.05(m) re quires that the juvenile c ourt’s orde r committing
a c hil d to the TY C in c lud e a de te rm inatio n th a t: (A) it is i n the child’s best intere sts to be placed outside the child’s home; (B ) rea sonable e ffor

ts were made to prevent or e liminate the need f or the c hild’s remova l from the child’s home and to make it possible for the c hild to return home; and (C) the child, in the child’s home, c annot be pr ovided the quality of ca re a nd level of s u p p o rt an d s u

p e r v is io n th at th e c h il d n e e d s to me e t th e c o n d itions of probation.
Id . § 54.05(m) (West Supp. 2006).

The modifying or der must s pecif ically rec ite the conduc t which prompted the trial court to modify

its prior order

of disposition. K.W

.H . v . S tat e , 596 S.W .2d 248 (T ex . Civ. App.—Texarkana

1980, no writ). Providing s p ec i fi c rea sons for the disposition provides the child with notice of the court’s rea sons so that the child can deter mine the need f

or an a ppeal. In re5

J.R. , 907 S.W .2d 107, 110 (Tex. App
. — Au s t in 1995, no writ). Additionally , a re cord is cr eate d fo r the a pp e llate c ourt to re ly on in makin g its de c isi on a bo ut w he the r s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the juvenile cour

t’s finding s and dete rminations. 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.). The ref ore, merely rec iting st atutory lang uag e will not be suffic ient to justi fy the juvenile cour

t’s ruling
. In re J

.T.H. , 779 S.W .2d 954, 959 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no writ). Howe ver, statutory lang uag e supplemente d by additi o n al fi ndings is suff icient to meet the requirements of the family code. Se e In re P. L. , 106 S.W .3d 334, 338 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (or der trac king lang uag e of section 54.05 and explaining c ourt’s re asons was a ppropriate ). Th e inc lusio n o f t

he of fe ns e and its surr ound ingc ir c ums tanc e s in an o rd e r c on sis tin g of

ma inl y statutory lang uag e is sufficie nt. J.T.H. , 779 S.W .2d at 959. I n this case, the juvenile court’s order specified that L .T.H. violated the c ondition of pr ob a tio n r e qu ir inghim

to “ be ins ide the re sid e nc e of [his ] g ra nd pa re nts e a c h d ay

be tw e e n 9 :00 p. m. and 6:00 a
. m . , u nless acc ompanied by [hi s] parent or g uardia

n.” The order

further specifie d that L
. T
. H. “failed to be inside the r esidenc e of his [gr andpar ents] on November 1, 2005 to pre sent.” Additionally , the o rd er s p ecif ied that L .T.H. “w ill not accept pa renta l supervision and has demonstrated a disreg ard for all authority .” The order then re cited the ne cessa

ry statutory lang uag e: [L .T.H.], in [ L .T.H.]’s home, cannot be provided th e q u al i t y of ca re a nd level of su pp or t and su pe rv isi on tha t [L .T .H .] nee ds to me e t the c on dit ion s of p ro batio n. Al l rea sonable e ffor

ts were made to pre vent or eliminate the need f or [L .T.H.]’s removal fromh o me an d

to ma k e it p o s s ib le f

o r [L
. T
. H
. ] t o r e tu

r nh o me . T h e Co u rt f

u rth er finds that [L .T.H.] has been r emoved f rom his home and the Court approves of the remova l. The Court furthe r finds that the loca l resourc es of this Co urt are not adequate to meet such ne eds or a ccomplish the nec essar y protec tion of the public.6

I t th e re fo re a

pp e ars to t

he Court that the be st i nte re st o f [L .T .H .] and of so c ie ty wi ll be ser ved by committing [L .T.H.] to the care , cu s tody , and contr ol of the Texas Youth Commi ssion.
I n addition to reciting the nec essar y statutory lang uag e provide d for in sec tion 54.05(m), se e id ., the orde r complies with sec tion 54.05(i) by specific ally

stating the rea so ns for modify ing th e d is p o s it io n . L
. T
. H
. “ f a il e d to b e in s id e th e r e s id e n c e o f h is [g r an d p ar e n ts] on November

1, 2005 to present,” which was a direc t violation of one of the c onditions of his probation. Additionally , the orde r spec ified that L .T.H. “w ill not accept pa ren t al s u p ervision and has de mon str a te d a

dis re g ard fo r a ll a uth or ity .” F ina lly , the juv e nil e c ourt sp e c if ie d th a t th e be st i nte re st “of soc iety ” would also be serve d by committing L .T.H. to TYC. S e e J.T.H. , 7 7 9 S
. W .2d at 959 (holding that juvenile cour t’s “listing of pr otection of t h e publi c as a fac tor” in committing juv e nil e to T YC , w he n c omb ined wi th o the r r e a so ns , s a tis fi e d s pe c if ic ity re qu ir e me nt) . We ho ld that th e or de r s a ti sfi es th e sp e c if ic ity re qu ir e me nt o f s e c tio n 5 4. 05 (i ). We o ve rr ule L .T .H .’ s f

ir st point of err or.
Com m itm ent to TYC

I n h is s e c on d p oin t of

e rro r, L .T .H . c on te nd s th a t th e juv e nil e c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in

c omm itt inga

pp e lla nt t o th e Te xas Y ou th C omm iss ion
. Se c tio n 54. 05 (j ) of the fa mil y
c od e pr ov ide s th a t:
I f, af ter c onducting a hearing to modify dispositi on without a jury , the cour t finds by a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t a c h il d v io late d a r e a s o n a b le and lawful condition of probation ordere d under Sec tion 54.04(q), the cour t may modify the dispositi on to comm it the child to the Texas Youth Com mission under Section7

54.04(d)( 3) for

a ter m that does not exceed the origina l sentence assessed by the cour t or jury
. Te x. F a m. C od e Ann. § 54. 05 (j ) ( Wes t Su pp . 2 00 6) . L .T .H . c on c e de s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa ctually sufficie nt to find that he viol ated a condition of his probation. Howe ver, he contends that the juvenile cour

t’s decision wa s “ar

bitrary and unre asonable ” bec ause the violation was “not his fau l t .” L .T.H. ar g ues that bec ause his fa mily has a “ history

of moving without notice to the probation de p ar t m ent” a

nd beca use he is “mildly

mentally reta rded,” the probation violation was “out of his re alm of control.” L .T.H. fur ther arg ues that commitment to TYC is usually “re serve d for only serious j uvenile offender s.” See I n re J.P. , 136 S.W .3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2004) (Schneide r, J ., concur ring ). We revie w decisions to commit juveniles to TYC for abuse of discr etion. Id
. at 632. “Juvenile courts are vested with a gre at amount of discre tion in determining the suitable dispositi on
o f c h i l dre n fo u n d t o h av e en gage d i n d el i n qu en t co n d u ct , an d t h i s i s es p ec i al l y

s o re gar d i n g h ea ri n gs to modify dispositi on.” In re K.B. , 106 S.W .3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pe t.). “Unde r an abus e o f d is c r e ti o n r e v ie w , w e r e v e r s e th e tr ia l c o u rt o n ly if th e tr ia l c o u rt h a s a c te d in an
unrea sonable or a

rbitrar y manner .” Id
. We cannot conc lude that the juvenile c ourt abused its discre tion in commi t ting L .T.H. to TYC. L .T.H. pleade d true to violating a condition of his pr obation. This was the sec ond time that the juvenile cour t had found that L .T.H. violated a condit i o n o f h i s probation. At the modification hear ing, the juvenile cour t hear d evidenc e that the de partment ha d attempted seve ral methods to keep L .T.H. at home, but that none of those methods had succ eede d. The juvenile c ourt8

also hea rd evide nce that L .T.H.’s fa mily had a history

of not coop erating with the pr obation depar tment, and the juvenile c ourt could re asonabl y infer f rom this evidence that there would be
su bs e qu e n tv i o l a t i o n s o f

p r o b a t i o ni f

L
. T
. H
. r e m a i n e d

un d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o no f h i s g r an d p a r e nts
. Whil e L .T.H. did argue that his uncle was perha ps a more suitable place ment, his uncle did not show
u p at t h e h ea ri n g.

Al tho ug h L .T .H . a sse rt s th a t hi s “ mil d me nta l r e tard a tio n” a nd his family ’s ro le sh ou ld e xcu se his pr ob a tio n v iol a tio ns , h e do e s littl e to el a bo rate on the se argume nts and

the juv e nil e court c ould have c oncluded other wise on this rec ord. As for L .T.H.’s argument that TYC is reser ved for “more serious offe nders,” we note that L .T.H. was orig inally place d on probation for committing tw o mi sd e me ano r a ssa

ult s and we wi ll n ot se c on d- g ue ss the juv e nil e c ourt ’s jud g me nt ca ll. On thi s
re c or d, we ho ld t

hat th e ju ven il e court

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

c omm itt ingL .T .H . to TY C. We overrule L .T.H.’s sec ond point of err or.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e or de r o f t

he juv e nil e c ourt
.

_______________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: September

6, 2007