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

NO. 03-05-00242- CV

I n th e M a tt er o f

I . P.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-21 ,768 , 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
I .P. appeals fr om the juvenile cour t’s order committing him to th e cu s tody of the Te xas Y ou th C omm iss ion (“ TY C” ). I n tw o is su e s, I .P. c on te nd s th at t he commitm e nt o rd e r i s defic ient beca

use it does not state spec ifically the re asons for the modification and that the court abused its discretion by

committing him to TYC. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05( i) (West Supp. 2005). B eca

use we conclude that the orde r modifying pr obation is not deficient and that the district court did not abuse its discre tion, we af firm the district cour

t’s order
. BACK GR OUND On J anuar y 28, 2005, I .P. was placed on nine m onths’ probation for a state ja il felony g raf fiti charg e. One term of I .P.’s probation requir ed him to enroll at t h e Alter native L ear

ning Center ( “AL C”) and attend ever y class on eac h school day . Disciplinary suspension from school wa s2

considere d an unexcused a bsence
. I .P. did not e nroll at AL C on J anuar y 28, 2005, and did not attend class duringthe wee k of January 31 throug h Fe bruar

y 4, 2005. On Februa

ry 7, 2005, I .P. enrolled
a t A L C and a tte nd e d cla ss. At the e nd of that fir st day , he wa s app ro a c he d by the a ssi sta

nt p ri nc ipa l, who had notice d g ang -re lated tattoos on the bac k of I .P.’s leg s. She informed him that he could not
wea r shorts to school and that he should wear long pants to cover up his tattoos. I .P. responded by cursin g r e p e a te d ly

a t t h e a s s is ta n t p r in c ip a l. A s a

r e s u lt o f th is o u tb u r s t, I
. P. w a s s u s p e n d e d f r om school for two da

y s. On Fe bruar

y 15, 200 5 , t h e S tate filed a motion to m odify

dispositi on. The motion alleg ed that I .P. violated the terms of his probation when he was suspende d from school on F ebrua ry 7, 2005. The motion also alleg ed two other probation violations: testing posi tive for mar ihuana on Fe bruar y 8, 2005, and fa iling to attend AL C as direc ted. At a h ea ri n g o n Fe b ruar y 28, 2005, the State wa ive d th e latte r t

wo vio latio ns , a

nd I .P. a dmi tte d to the pr ob a tio n v iol a ti on con c e rn inghis
s u s p en s i o nfr o m s ch o o l
. T h e c o u rt t h en h ea rdev i d en ce re gar d i n g s en t en ci n g.

I .P. ’s pr ob atio n of

fi c e r te sti fi e d that I .P. ha d be e n on pr ob a tio n in 20 02 fo r m

ult ipl e burg lari e s. Th is p a st h ist or y of de lin qu e nc y , com bi ned wi th I .P. ’s re c e nt p ro batio n v iol a tio ns , pr omp te d th e pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r t o c on c lud e that c omm itm e nt to TY C wo uld be in I .P. ’s be st i nte re st. The district c ourt committed I .P. to TYC. B ut the court suspende d its order until Marc h 21 to give I .P. a n opportunity to “ chang e a littl e bit.” The court informed I .P. that, if his be havior improved, he would be a llowed to rema in on probation instead of be ing c ommitt ed to TYC.

At the hea

ring on Marc h 21, 2005, I
. P
. ’s p ro b ati on office r testified that since the Fe bruar y 28, 2005 hear i n g, h e h ad received a police re port stating that I .P. and six others we re3

observe d exit ing a

vehicle that had bee n stolen and pushed into a dr ainag e dit ch. Acc ording to the probation off

icer , I .P. was not arr ested in connection with this incident. I .P. testified t hat one of the individuals invol ved in the stolen ca r incident wa s “supposedly ” on probation, but I .P. denied knowing that the conditi ons of I .P.’s probation prohibit ed him from assoc iating w ith someone who
wa s o n p ro batio n. Th e c ourt a lso he ard te sti mony that, s inc e the F e br

ua ry 28 he ari ng , I .P. ha d a g a in been a disciplinary

problem at school. He was re mov ed fr o m his classroom for be ing “noncompliant” a

nd “disruptive,” a

nd afte r beingtaken to the sc hool office , continued to be rude a nd insubordinate. At the c onclusion of this second hea ring , the district c ourt committed I .P. to TYC for an indeter minate amount of time, not to ext end past I .P.’s 21st birthday . The c ourt’s orde r stated:
“The Respondent [ I .P.] will not acc ept par ental super vision and has demonstrate d a disreg ard f

or all authority
. [I .P.] , in [ I .P.’s] home, ca nnot be provided the quality of car e and le vel of support a nd supervision that [I .P.] needs to me et the conditions of probation. All rea sonable e ffor ts were made to p re v en t or eliminate the ne ed for [I .P.’s] remova l from home and t o m ak e i t p o ssible for [I .P.] to return home. T he Court further

fin d s that [I .P.] has bee n remove d from his home and the Court approve s of t he removal. The court further finds that the l ocal resourc es of this Court are not adequate to meet such ne eds o r ac co mplish t he nec essar y protec tion of the public.” This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

I .P. bring s two issues on appea l. He first asser ts that the trial court’s or der modify ing his dis po sit ion

is d e fi c ie nt f

or fa ilure to c omp ly

wi th T e xas F a mil y

Cod e se c tio n 5 4. 05 be c a us e it does not “ specific ally ” state the rea sons f or the modification. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(i). I n his second issue, he ur g es that the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by committing him to TYC.4

Stand ard of review

J uvenile cour

ts have broa d discretion to deter mine a suitable disposition for children who have enga ged in delinquent conduct. In re A.I

. , 8 2 S. W.3 d 3 77 , 3 79 -8 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 2002, pet. denied). Absent an a buse of discr etion, we will not disturb a district court’s de cision. In re M.S. , 940 S.W .2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ). I n re v iewing the trial cour t’s ruling for a

n abuse of discretion, we examine whether the court acte d without refe renc e to g uiding rules or pr inciples. In re C.L. , 8 74 S.W. 2d 88 0, 88 6 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 94 , no wr it) . We mus t deter mine whether

the trial cour

t acted in a

n unrea sonable or a

rbitrar y manner . Id. We may

not
reve rse f or abuse of discre tion, even if we might dis ag ree with the t rial court’s decision, as long a s t h e d e c i s i o nw a s w i t h i nt h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d i s c r e t i o n ar y a u t h o r i t y. Id. I
. P. “ a c kn o w le d g es that the evidenc e wa s fac tually

and leg ally

sufficie nt to find that he viol ated the conditions of his probation.” Th e refore, the on ly

iss ue be fo re us is w he the r t he tr ia l c ourt

a c te d a rb itr ari ly or unre a so na

bly in modify ing its disposition. Specif icity of the district court ’s order Texas Family

Code section 54.05(i) states “[t] he court shall specific ally state in the ord er it s reason s f

or mod if y ingthe dis po sit ion

. . . . ” Te x. F a m. C od e Ann. § 5 4. 05 (i ). Th is require ment ensure s that appellate courts can de termine whe ther the e vidence supports the rea sons
rec ited in the court’s order and whether those rea sons are sufficie nt to just ify the disposition. In re L.R. , 6 7 S. W.2 d 3 32 , 3 36 -3 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 01 , n o p e t.) ; see also In reJ.R. , 907 S.W .2d 107, 110 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ). The require ment also assure s that the child will have5

notice of the court’s reasons for m odifying the dispositi on and will be in a posi tion to challeng e them
on a pp e a l. In re J

.R. , 907 S.W
. 2 d at 1 1 0 . Statutory rec itals in an order , by

themselves, do not suffice as the re quired re asons for a court’s ruling. In re J .T.H. , 7 7 9 S. W. 2 d

9 5 4 , 9 5 9 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin

19 89 , no wr it)
. B ut tr a c kin g statut or y langua g e in an

or de r, wh e n s up ple me nte d w ith additional finding s, is sufficient to meet the r equire ment of sec t ion 54.05(i). See id. (consider ing Texas F amily Code § 54.04(f) which contains lang uag e identical to that in section 54.05(i)). In In re J.T.H. this Court considered a district court’s orde r that conta ined statutory rec itals from section 54.04(c) but a dded: “Considering the seriousness of the off ense, a ll the circumstanc es surrounding the offe nse and the protec tion of t he publi c, it is in the child’s best interest to be plac ed outside the home.” Id. at 959. We held that, although t h e o rd er consisted larg ely of statutory

lang uag e, the inclusion of the sentenc e asse ssing the of fense and the c ircum s t an ce s surroundingit sufficed a s specific rea sons for the c ourt’s disposition. Id.

Her e, the statutory

rec itals in the district co u rt ’s order wer e supplemente d by

the court’s f indings that “ [I .P.] will not acce pt pare ntal sup er v i s i o n and has de monstrated a disre g ard for a ll authority ” and that the “loca l resourc es of [the] court are not adequate to meet [I .P.’s] needs
or ac complish the nece ssary protec tion of the public.” The se finding s are supported by ev i d ence that, whil e I .P
. was liv inga t ho me his pa re nts we re un a

ble to p re ve nt h is m ari hu ana us e , h is association with ot hers who wer e on probation, and his participation in an incident involving a stolen
ve hic le . T he re c or d a lso sh ows th at I .P. c on tin ue d to be a

dis c ipl ina

ry pr ob le m at A L C, d e sp ite being informed that his conduct would dete rmine whe ther he rema ined on probation or was
c omm itt e d to TY C. F ur

the rm or e , I .P. ’s pr ob a tio n of fi c e r te sti fi e d that I .P. ha d b e e n thro ug h mo st6

of the prog rams offe red as alternatives to TYC, including intensive supe rvision and probation. He
o p i n e d t h a tc o m m i t m e n tt o T Y C w o u l d b e i nt h e b e s ti n t e r e s to f

I. P
. an d t h e c o m m u n i t y. Be cause the statutory l an g uag e wa s supplemented by additional rea sons that find support in the rec ord, we conclude that the order was suff iciently specific to satisfy

section 54.05(i). I .P.’s first point of error

is overrule d.
Com m itm ent to TYC

The dua l policy

g oal s o f the juvenile justice c ode ar e prote cting the public and reha bilitating juvenile off

ender s. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.0 1 (West 1995). Whenever possible, reha

bilitation s hould occur

in a family

environment. Id. § 51.01(5). Howeve r, whe n there is a his tor y of de lin qu e nt b e havio r a

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

a uth or ity , r e ha

bil itatio n in

a fa mil y
e nv ir on me nt m ay

no t be a pp ro pr iate . I .P. ha d p re vio us ly be e n p la c e d o n pro bat ion fo r m ult ipl e burg lari e s in 2002
. He a dmi tte d that he vio late d his pr ob a tio n b y be ingsu sp e nd e d f

ro m sc ho ol. I .P.
wa s g ive n a

se c on d c ha

nc e to rema in on probation rathe r than be committed to TYC, if he improved his behavior a fter the Fe bruar y 28, 2005 hear ing. Despite t he court’s admonitions, during the three
wee ks betwee n the Fe bruar y and Mar ch hea

ring s, I .P. was once ag ain disciplined at school for being dis ru pti ve in c la ss a

nd re fu sin g to o be y

sc ho ol a uth or iti e s. Duri ngthe same thr e e -w e e k p e ri od , I .P.
was see n exit ing a

stolen vehicle a

nd associate d with an individual who was on proba tion. Te xas F a mil y

Cod e se c tio n 5 4. 05 (f

) state s th a t a

c ourt may mod if y its dis po sit ion

to commit a child to TYC if it finds from a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the c hild violated the court’s r easona

ble and law ful order
. Te x. F a m. C od e Ann. §5 4. 05 (f ) ( Wes t Su

pp . 20 05 ). I .P. admitted to violating his probation by his suspension from school on F ebrua ry 7, 2005. I .P. violated7

a re a so na ble and lawf ul c ourt or de r an d c on tin

ue d h is d e lin qu e nt c on du c t du ri ngthe a tte mpt

to reha bilitate him in his family

environment. Se c tio n 5 4. 05 (f ) a uth or ize d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to c omm it him to T YC fo r v iol a tin g the or de r. Th e re fo re , h old that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a c te d in a c c or da

nc e wi th
a g uiding leg al principle in c ommitt ing I .P. to TYC. See I n re C.L. , 874 S.W .2d at 886. Moreove r, it wa s rea sonable for the district court to deter mine that reha

bilitation of I .P. in a family environment was inappr opriate ba sed u p o n his continued delinquenc y and the violations of his probation conditions. F o r th e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e ti o nby committing I .P. to TYC. W e over rule I .P.’s second issue.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled both of I .P.’s issues, we af firm the district cour

t’s order
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 15, 2006