C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N THE MATT ER OF E.F .Z .R., A J UVENI L E. § § § § § § No. 08-07-00078- CV

Appea l from the 65th DistrictCourt of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 0700147)

O P I N I O N T h i s i s an appe al from a judgme nt and orde r of c ommitm ent committing the juvenile, E.F.Z .R., to the Texas Youth Com mission (TYC). I. SUMMAR

Y OF THE E VIDENCE On F eb ru ary

1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , th e S t at e f

i l edi t s P et i t i o nBa s edo nDe l i n qu en tC o n d u ctwh i ch alleg ed that the juvenile, E.F.Z .R., e ng ag ed in delinquent conduct by committing the off

ense of possession of coc aine in the a

mount of 400 g rams or more. E.F.Z .R. w aived his r ight to a hear ing be fore the J udg e of the designate d J uvenile C ourt and agr eed to a hearing befor e the J uvenile C ourt Refe ree . He a lso waived a

jury

. E.F.Z .R. a

nd his attorney both sig ned a form stipulating to the evidenc e and admitting to the alleg ations contained in the petit ion. An Orde r of Adjudica tion was signe d by

the J uvenile Court Refe ree on Fe bruar y 20, 2007. J uvenil e Probation Off

icer L inda Ace vedo filed a

Pre-Disposition Report rec ommending E. F .Z .R. be c omm itt e d to the TY C. Adis po sit ion he ari ngwa s he ld on Ma

rc h 14 , 20 07
. At

the c los e of the he aring , t h e J u v en ile Court Refer ee c ommitt ed E.F .Z .R. to the TYC. A J udg ment ofT h is re p o rt ind ic a te d tha t o n F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , E .F .Z .R . d ro v e a v e h ic le a c ro ss th e Y sle ta P o rt o f E n try into 1 t he U ni t ed Stat es. T he vehi cl e co nt ai ned ap p roximatel y 23
. 3 5 po und s o f co cai ne. T he eval uat i o n po rt i o n o f t he repo rt st at ed t hat t he juveni l e was r esi d i ng wi t h hi s m o t her and wa s no t f o l l o wi ng her r ul es. She was l o si ng co nt rol o f t he juveni l e as he was b eco m i ng m o re r eb el l i o us and verball y aggres si ve t o ward s her. H e was as sociat i ng wi t h “ negat i ve peer s ” of

wh i ch hi s mo t her di s approved, and h e c ont i nu ed t o do s o. H e wa s s mo ki ng ci gar et t es an d had not at t ended s chool f or t wo y ear s . T he r eport s t at ed t hat , becau s e t he j uv eni l e i s a f orei gn na t i onal , he w as i nel i gi bl e f or s er vi ces thr o u g h the J u v e n ile P ro b a tio n D e p a rtm e n t. T h e r e c o m m e n d a tio n in th e r e p o rt w a s tha t t h e ju v e n ile b e c o m m itt e d to t h e c a r e , c u s t od y , a n d c on t r ol of t h e T Y C. Commitme nt an d an Or de r of Commitme nt w e re signe d b y the Juve nil e Court

Re fe re e on

the same day and by J udg e Alfre do Chavez of the 65th District Court of El Paso County , a Juvenile Court, on Marc h 20, 2007. At the dispositi on hear ing, A ceve do testified that she wa s a juvenile probation officer for the El Paso County

J uvenile Probation De partment. She testified that the exis tent one wa s the juvenile’s sole adjudication. She pr epar ed the Pre -Disposition Report reg ardingE.F.Z .R., which was a dmitted into evidence

. Ace vedo testified that the juve nil e wa s a ci t i z en of Me x ico, and he was in the

1 country illega lly

. He ha d no problems with alcohol or dr ug s. She rec ommended that E.F .Z .R. be
c omm itt e d to the TY C, be c a us e , du e to h is n on -c iti zen status , th e re wa s n o o the r p la c e me nt a va ila ble for him. E.F .Z .R.’s pare nts did not agr ee w ith the recommendation. The juve nile had bee n absent from school for

two y ear s, and his pare nts tried to ge t him back into school, but he ref used to g o. Ace vedo testified that the pare nts ha d not c ontributed to his delinquency

. She stated that her

r e c o m m e n d at i o nw a s i nth e b e s ti n t e r e s t s o f th e j u v e n i l e , a s w e l l a s th e c o m mun i ty. Duringcross-e x amination, Ace vedo st ated that it was possible that some juveniles who w ere in t he c ountr y ill e g a lly we re on pr ob atio n. She state d th a t E .F .Z .R. ’s mot he r w or ke d at a bu sin e ss called F un For

Kidz in C d. J uáre z, Chih., and that her son had worke d for the sa me employ er f

or four y ea rs . Ac ev ed o t es t i fi edth atth e p ar en t s d o n o tl i v e t o get h er . T h e f at h er h adb ee nt o al l h ea ri n gs of wh ic h h e ha d no tic e . Th e wi tne ss state d that th e juv e nil e ha d e xpre sse d r e mor se fo r h is a c tio ns . She did no t ob ta in a

ps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio n o f h im.On re dir e c t e xami natio n, Ac e ve do c lari fi e d th a t th e juv e nil e s wh o are in the c ountr y ill e g a lly and ar e on probation are livingwith their pare nts, who live in the United States. She was not aw are of any juv e nil e s w ho are on

pr ob atio n that li ve in C d. Juár e z. A c e ve do state d th a t th e Juve nil e Probation Depa

rtment cannot supervise juveniles living in Cd. J uáre z. She ag ree d that juveniles are sometimes placed with relatives, but that E.F.Z .R. had no relatives living in the Unit ed S tates. She testified that she ha d asked both the mother and the fathe r whe ther E.F .Z .R. had any relatives living in t he Un ite d St ate s. The de fense called E .F.Z .R.’s mothe r t o the stand. She testified that she a nd her son live toge ther. He r other children are marrie d and do not live with he r. E.F.Z .R.’s mother testified that she had trie d to keep he r son in school, but there w as diffic ulty with the testing pr ocedur es. She was
awa re that her son did not want to g o to school. The mother state d that there was a period whe n her son was slig htly rebe llious, but she denied that he was ever ag g ressive towards her. She testified that he r s on did no t li ke to d o c ho re s aro un d th e ho us e and that sh e dis a

pp ro ve d o f o ne of

his fr ie nd s. He wa s older than he r son, and she t houg ht he was using drug s. She stated that her son had bee n a
v e r y g o o d c h i l d , a l th o u g h h e r r e l at i o n s h i p w i th h i m h a d b e e n s tr a i n e d r e c e n t l y. T h e y h a da l w ays be e n c los e and

we re be st f

ri e nd s. E. F .Z .R. ’s fa

the r t e sti fi e d o n h is son ’s be ha lf

. He state d that he h a d a

n unc le wh o li ve d in Socorro, a

suburb of El Paso located in El Paso County . He ha d s p o k en to hi s uncle, who w as willing to kee p E.F.Z .R. The father did not know his uncle’ s addre ss, but he knew whe re he lived. He state d that the J uvenile Probation De partment ha d never asked him whe ther he had any relatives living in El Paso. The father testified that he had left the family when E.F .Z .R. was three y ear s old. He s aw h i s s o n ab o u t ev ery th re e m o n th s . Hi s un cl e h ad m et th e j u v en i l e th re e o r fo ur m o n th s ago at an a unt’s house in Cd. J uáre z, for about thirty minutes. The unc le had a lso met the juvenile teny e ars be fo re . T he un c le wa s n ot p re se nt i n th e c ourt ro om. At the close of the evidenc e, the Juvenile Court Refere e stated that she was g oing to f ind the juvenile was e ligible f

or the TYC, be cause he had c ommitt ed a f irst-deg ree felony . She stated that E.F.Z .R. was in need of reha bilitation and that the protec tion of the juvenile and the public re quired that he be c omm itt e d to the c are , c us tod y , a nd c on tr ol o f t

he TY C. II. DI SCU SSIO N In E .F .Z .R. ’s so le iss ue , h e ma int a ins that th e c ourt a bu se d its dis c re tio n b y

c omm itt inghim to t he TY C, whe n a

n a lte rn ativ e wa s ava ila

ble

. Spe c if

ic a lly , E. F .Z .R. c on te nd s that the c ourt sh ou ld have c ontinued the disposition hearinguntil further e vidence could be obtaine d co n ce rningthe
su ita bil ity of a pla c e me nt w iththe un c le in lie u of c omm itt ing him to the TY C. Th e juv e nil e a lso

argue s th a t th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e pr e se nte d th a t he wa s a da ng e r t o soc ie ty and that the c omm un ity
ne e de d to be pr ote c te d f

ro m hi m, a s th e Juve nil e Court fo un d in its Judg me nt o f C omm itm e nt. After a juvenile ha s been a djudge d to have e ng ag ed in delinquent conduc t, the juvenile cour t h as b ro ad discretion to deter mine a suitable disposition. In re C.J.H

. , 7 9 S
. W
. 3 d

6 9 8 , 7 0 2 ( T e x. App.--F ort Worth 2002, no pet.). We will not reve rse the juve nile court’s f indings re g arding dispositi on, absent a

clea r abuse o f d i s cr et i on. Id. In conductingthis review, we eng ag e in a tw o- pr on g e d ana ly sis : (1 ) Di d the tr ia l c ourt have su ff ic ie nt i nf or matio n u po n w hic h to e xer c ise its d i s c r e t i o n ; an d ( 2 ) d i d th e tr i a l c o urte r r i ni t s a p p l i c a t i o no f

d i s c r e t i o n ? In reM. A. C. , 999 S.W .2d 442, 446 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1999, no pet.)

. The tra ditional sufficienc y of the e vidence standards o f review come into play when
co n s i d er ing the first question. Id. We then proce ed to deter mine whether , based on the elicited evidenc e, the tria l court made a re asonable decision or whe ther it was a rbitrar y and unre asonable

. Id. To deter

mine whether a trial court abused i ts discretion, we must dec ide whethe r the c ourt ac tedwithout re fe re nce to a ny g uiding r ules or princ iples; in other words, whe ther the a ct was a rbitrar y
or unre asonable

. In re B.N.F. , 1 20 S.W. 3d 87 3, 87 7 ( Te x. Ap p. -- F or t Wor th 2 00 3, no pe t.) . M e re ly beca use a tria l court has de cided a matter within its discretionar y authority in a manner

differ ent from ho w a n a pp e llate c ourt

wo uld have ru le d in a sim ila

r ci rc ums tanc e do e s not d e mon str a te an a bu se of discre tion. Sotelo v. Gonzales , 170 S.W .3d 783, 78 8 (T ex . App.--E l Paso 2005, no pet.). An abuse of discretion does not oc cur wher e the trial court bases its de cision on conflictingevidenc e. In re B.N.F. , 1 20 S.W. 3d

at 87 7. F ur

the rm or e , a

n a bu se of dis c re tio n do e s no t oc c ur

a s lo nga s so me evidenc e of substantive and probative char acte r ex ists to s upport the trial cour t’s decision. So te lo , 170 S.W .3d at 788. A juvenile cour

t’s finding s of fa ct ar e re viewable fo r l ega l and fa ctual suff iciency of the evidenc e by the s ame standards t hat are applied in re viewingthe leg al or fa ctual suff iciency of the evidenc e supporting a jury ’s answe rs to a cha rg e. In re A.S. , 954 S.W .2d 855, 861 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.). In co n s i d er ing a

“no evide nce” leg al suffic iency issue, we c onsider only

the evidenc e and inf e re nc e s th at te nd

to s up po rt

the c ha lle ng e d fin din g and dis re g ard a ll e vid e nc e and

inf e re nc e s to the contra ry . See W eirich v. W

eirich , 833 S.W .2d 942, 945 (Tex. 1992). I f any probative e vidence supports the finding , it mustbe upheld. So te lo , 170 S.W .3d at 787. Fa ctual insuffic iency involves a findingthat is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the e vidence as to be manife stly wrong . Id. In r e vi ewi ng an is su e a sse rt ingtha t a fi nd ingis fac tually insufficient -- i.e., that it is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e -- we must consider all of the evidenc e, both the evidenc e which te nds to prove the e x istence of a vital fac t, as well a s ev i d ence which tends to disprove its exist ence . Id. I t is fo r t he fa c t f ind e r t o deter mine the weig ht to be g iven to the testimony and to r esolve any conflicts in the evidenc e. Id.T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 5 4 .0 4 (f) p ro v id e s tha t t h e c o u rt sh a ll sp e c ifi c a lly sta te in its d is p o sitio n o rd e r its 2 re a so n s fo r th e d isp o sitio n . In th a t l igh t, the c o u rt a lso fo u n d tha t:

1. T hi s di s po s i t i on i s ne ces s ar y as t he j uv eni l e i s an [ s i c] Forei gn N at i onal an d t he C our t ha s no ot her al t er nat i ves ot her t han i ns t i t ut i onal i zat i on, as t he j uv eni l e can not be pl ace d on probat i on, as pr obat i on of

f i ce r s c an n ot s u per v i s e j u v en i l es i n M ex i co. 2. T he j uv eni l e i s i n n eed of r eha bi l i t at i on an d t he onl y s er vi ces ava i l abl e t o t he C our t t hat ca n be pr ov i ded t o t h e j u v en i l e a r e l oca t ed wi t h i n St at e i n s t i t u t i on s a n d t h er ef or e, t h e j u v en i l e n ee ds t o be c o m m itt e d to the c a re , cu sto d y, an d c o n tro l o f t h e T e x a s Y o u th C o m m issio n . 3
. T h e ju v e n ile h a s n o p a r e n t( s ), g u a rd ia n (s ) o r c u sto d ia n (s ), [w h o ] is/a re p ro v id ing su itab le supervi si o n and by usi ng t hi s p art i cul ar di spo si t i o n, t he juveni l e can co nst ant l y be m o ni t o red and For us to rever se, we must conclude that the trial court’s finding is so contra ry to the g reat weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e as to be manifestly wrong . Id. The juvenile c ourt’s exercise of di scre tion in making an appropriate disposit ion is guide d by the re quirements of se ction 5 4.04 of the F amily Code. In re A.S. , 954 S.W .2d at 861. Section 54.04(c) provides that no disposition may be made under the section, unless the child is in need of reha bilitation or the protection of the public or of t he child re quires that disposition be made. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54 .0 4( c ). F ur the r, the tr ia l c ou

rt may no t make a dis po sit ion pla c inga juv e nil e on probation outside of his home, unless the court finds that the c hild, in the child’s home, cannot be provide d the quality

of ca re and level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of probation. Id. F ur the r, to c omm it a

juv e nil e to t

he TY C, the tr ial court

mus t f ind and inc lud e in i ts dis po sit ion

or de r i ts d e te rm inatio n that (A) it is in the c hil d’ s bes t inte re sts to be pla c e d o uts ide his home, (B ) re asonable eff

orts wer e made to pr event or eliminate the need for his r emoval fr om the home and t o ma

k e it p o s s ib le f

o r th e c h il d to r e tu

r n to h is h o me , an d ( C) th e c h il d cannot be provided the qua lity

of ca re a nd level of suppor

t and supervision in his home that he nee ds to meet the conditions of probation. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.04(i)(1) (A)- (C). He re, the trial court made the mandator

y finding s in its di sposition order. 2recei ve ser vi ces i n ord er t o m o d i f y hi s/ her beha vi o r. 4. T he pubi c [ s i c] s af et y r equi r es t hat t hi s di s po s i t i on b e made an d t hat t he j uv eni l e be r emo ved fro m the E l P a so C o m m u n ity a n d institutio n a lize d a s h e /sh e p o se s a hig h risk to the c o m m u n ity. 5
. T hi s d i spo si t i o n wi l l ho l d t he juveni l e res p o nsi b l e and acco unt ab l e f o r hi s/ her beha vi o r and c o n se q u e n c e s c a n b e im p o se d fo r h is/he r d e linq u e n t b e h a v io r in the c o m m u n ity. E.F.Z .R. a

rgues that the evidenc e indicated that the J uvenile Probation Officerh ad not investigated any alternatives to c ommitt ing him to TYC. He ma intains that, once his father indicated that the uncle w ould take him in, the court should ha ve continued the disposition hearinguntil the matter c ould be develope d. Reg arding that last contention, we note that E.F.Z .R did not m ove for a continuanc e. Notwiths tanding that, E.F.Z .R. maintains that the court should have c ontinued the d i s p o s i tion hearing , beca use the matter

of the unc le’s ava ilability to car e for

him was unresolve d. T h e j u v en i l e ci t es n o au th o ri ty fo r th e p ro p o s i t i o nth atth e c o urt h ada du ty t o co n t i nu e t h e h ea ri n g,
an d w e know of none

. See I n re J.M .L., N o . 0 8

- 0 6

- 0 0 0 1 5
- CV , _ _ _ S. W. 3 d _ _ _ _ , 2 0 0 7 WL 31 20 81 4, a t *5 (T e x. Ap p. -- El Pa so Oc t. 25 , 20 07 , no pe t.) (n ot y e t pu bli sh e d) . F ur

the r, the un c le was not pre sent in court. The evidenc e was conflicting on whether either pa rent ha d mentioned the
un c le be fo re , a

nd the fathe r’ s te sti mony , e ve n if take n as tr ue , indi c a te d that the un c le ha d ha d a lmo st
no pr ior inv olv e me nt wi th E. F .Z .R. Un de r t he a bo ve -m e nti on e d s tand ard s, the c ourt c ou ld
rea sonably

have de termined that ther e was no alternative to removing the juvenile fr om the home, g ive n th e ina

bil ity of the pr ob atio n a

uth or iti e s to su

pe rv ise him

. E.F.Z .R. al s o ar gu es that there was no e vidence to support the court’s f inding that “ [t ]he pubic [sic] safe ty require s that this dis position be made and that the juvenile be r emoved f rom the El Paso Communi ty
. . . .” The juvenile maintains that the crime he committed w as n o t a v i o l ent offe nse, and he p o i n t s t o h i s mother’s testimony that he wa s “a ve ry

g ood child.” She also stated that, even thoug h matters had be en straine d betwee n them for sever al wee ks, they had alwa y s beenclose and wer e best friends. A g ain, the evide nce w as conf licting, in that the Pre -Disposition Report ind ic a te d th at th e ju ven il e wa s r e sid ingwi th h is m oth e r a nd wa s n ot f

oll ow inghe r r

ule s. F ur the rm or e , s he wa s lo sin g c on tr ol o f h im a s h e wa s b e c om in g m ore rebe lli ou s and ve rb a lly ag g ressive towards her. He was associating with “ neg ative peer s” of whom his mother disapproved, and he c ontinued to do so. He had not attended school for two y ear s. Howeve r, even if the evide nce supporting the finding is weak, se ction 54.04(c) states in the disjunctive t h at a d i s position can be

ma de , if the c ourt fi nd s th at the juv e nil e is in ne e d o f r e ha bil itatio n o r t

he pr ote c tio n o f t

he pu bli c or of the c hild requires that a dispo s i t i on be made

. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.04(c) . There fore , as the c ourt found that the child was in nee d of re habilitation, it i s irrele vant whethe r the prote ction of the c hild or the public requir ed a disposition. See In re S.A.M

. , 933 S.W .2d 744, 745 (Tex. App.-- San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Ac cording ly , E.F.Z .R.’s sole issue is overrule d.III . C ON CL USI ON

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

KENNET H R. CARR, J ustice Marc h 13, 2008 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.