Court Opinion

ID: 9400394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 07:11:05.925473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:44.828025
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                              EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                   EL PASO, TEXAS

 IN THE MATTER OF                               §              No. 08-22-00159-CV

 K.J.R.-M.,                                     §                Appeal from the

 A Juvenile.                                    §           65th Judicial District Court

                                                §            of El Paso County, Texas

                                                §                 (TC# 2100227)

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant K.J.R.-M., a juvenile, whose conduct had been previously adjudicated as

delinquent, asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it modified her probation to a

commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). We affirm.

                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       In October 2021, K.J.R.-M., then 14 years-old, was adjudicated for Possession of a

Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Penalty Group 1, 4 grams or more but less than 200

grams, a first-degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d). On October 21,

2021, K.J.R.-M. was placed on probation with the El Paso County Juvenile Probation Department

(the Department).
         About seven months later, on June 23, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s

motion to modify K.J.R.-M.’s probation. K.J.R.-M. pled true to violating several conditions of her

probation including the following: consuming or possessing marijuana; failing to report to her

probation officer; failing to remain in El Paso County; failing to comply with the GPS program;

failing to attend school; failing to attend family counseling sessions; failing to submit to drug tests;

and failing to abide by the terms and conditions of the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive

Action Program. The trial court granted the State’s motion. The trial court set a disposition hearing

on July 22, 2022.

         Evidence at the July hearing focussed on K.J.R.-M.’s probation violations and possible

placement.

         A. Probation officer’s testimony

         Probation Officer Arlene Lira testified the Department’s recommendation was K.J.R.-M.

be committed to TJJD. Lira explained K.J.R.-M. did not lend herself to suitable supervision and

had absconded for seven months while on probation. K.J.R.-M. was placed on probation on

October 21, 2021, and absconded less than a month later, on November 5, 2021.

         In October 2021, K.J.R.-M. was placed with an unrelated guardian, Leslie Amaya. K.J.R.-

M. reported a man with access to the home had made her feel uncomfortable. After K.J.R.-M.

absconded, Lira attempted to contact K.J.R.-M.’s mother who was uncooperative and eventually

stopped answering Lira’s calls. A directive to apprehend K.J.R.-M. was issued on November 8,

2021. K.J.R.-M. was finally detained in New Mexico on May 20, 2022, and transported back to

Texas.

         After leaving Amaya’s home, K.J.R.-M. stayed with a sister before going to live with her

girlfriend. K.J.R.-M. reportedly turned herself in because her mother threatened to call the police

                                                   2
after she went to live with her girlfriend. K.J.R.-M. admitted to Lira she had smoked marijuana

with her girlfriend.

       After K.J.R.-M. was detained in 2022, the Department determined she did not qualify for

the Challenge Program because she did not have a parent available to participate in it. Further, the

Department determined K.J.R.-M.’s aunt was not a suitable placement due to her criminal history.

The aunt had been convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, violated that

probation, and was subsequently sentenced to two years in TDCJ. Further, she was convicted of a

federal offense, attempting to bring an undocumented child into the country. The aunt violated her

probation by testing positive for cocaine and was subsequently sentenced to seven months in

federal prison.

       According to Lira, at TJJD K.J.R.-M. would undergo a 90-day assessment period to

determine which services would support her rehabilitation. Further she would receive education,

mental heath, substance abuse, and counseling services. Finally, K.J.R.-M. would have an

opportunity to obtain her G.E.D., attend trade school, and enroll in a local community college. Lira

testified commitment to TJJD was in K.J.R.-M.’s best interest.

       B. K.J.R.-M.’s testimony

       K.J.R.-M.’s testimony focused on her issues with the initial placement and her actions

when she absconded. In her initial placement, K.J.R.-M. reported a number of issues, the most

concerning, was a landlord who began touching her and attempted to get close to her. The day

K.J.R.-M. ran away, the landlord had used his key to enter the home, so K.J.R.-M. hid in the

bathroom with a knife. As a result, K.J.R.-M. cut off her GPS monitor and ran out of the home.

                                                 3
       In November 2021, after she ran away, K.J.R.-M. lived with her 17-year-old sister and four

younger siblings in New Mexico. In May 2022, K.J.R.-M. ran away from her sister and went to

live with K.J.R.-M.’s girlfriend. K.J.R.-M. admitted to consuming marijuana with her girlfriend.

       C. The aunt’s testimony

       K.J.R.-M.’s aunt testified she currently lived in Chaparral, New Mexico with her partner

and children. The aunt testified in 2014, she had was placed on probation, in Texas but was

eventually revoked. In either 2017 or 2018, she was placed on a federal probation and subsequently

revoked.

       After being released from TDC two years earlier, the aunt had taken steps to move on from

her convictions. She did not originally volunteer to take K.J.R.-M. in because her partner was not

willing to take responsibility for K.J.R.-M. at that time. Further, the aunt was concerned her past

criminal history would bar her from being K.J.R.-M.’s guardian. At the July hearing, however, the

aunt testified both she and her partner were willing to take K.J.R.-M. into their home. She

understood the duties involved and was committed to helping K.J.R.-M. She promised she would

report any drug use by K.J.R.-M. while in her care to the Department.

       D. Trial court’s judgment

       The trial court followed the Department’s recommendation and committed K.J.R.-M. to

TJJD for the remainder of her two-year term. K.J.R.-M.’s appeal followed.

                                          DISCUSSION

       In her sole issue, K.J.R.-M. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it modified her

probation and committed her to TJJD. We disagree.

                                                 4
       A. Standard of review and applicable law

       We review a trial court’s modification of a disposition order for an abuse of discretion.

Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d 867, 869 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.). A trial court has broad

discretion in determining a suitable disposition for a child who has been adjudicated as having

engaged in delinquent behavior, but it abuses that discretion “when it acts unreasonably or

arbitrarily without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” Id. (citing Downer v. Aquamarine

Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985)). “A juvenile court does not abuse its discretion

merely because it decides a matter differently than the appellate court would in a similar situation.”

Id. (citing In re M.O., 451 S.W.3d 910, 914 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.).

       A juvenile court’s determination whether to modify a disposition order is guided by § 54.05

of the Texas Family Code. Id. When the disposition to be modified is based on a felony offense, it

may be modified to commit the child to the TJJD if the juvenile court determines by preponderance

of the evidence of the juvenile violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court. Id. see

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(f). In modifying a disposition order by committing the juvenile to

TJJD, the court must determine and include in its order (1) placing the juvenile outside her home

was in the her best interest; (2) reasonable efforts were made to avoid removal from the home and

to make it possible to return; and (3) the quality of care and level of support and supervision the

juvenile needs to be able to meet the conditions of probation cannot be provided in her home.

Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d at 869; TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(m).

       A finding of reasonable efforts can be supported by evidence the juvenile was aware of

what she needed to do to stay on probation but failed to comply with multiple probation terms. See

In re J.J.N., No. 2-02-204-CV, 2003 WL 253660, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2003, no

pet.) (mem.op.) (holding evidence supported the trial court’s reasonable efforts finding when

                                                  5
felony-adjudicated juvenile was placed on intensive supervised probation with electronic

monitoring, was fully aware of the requirements of his probation, and failed to comply with

probation terms). Evidence the Department considered alternative programs other than TJJD

unsuitable can also support a finding of reasonable efforts. See Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d at

873 (holding evidence supported the trial court’s reasonable efforts finding where felony-

adjudicated juvenile violated probation multiple times and the Department provided testimony

about other programs which it considered but could not be utilized).

       Our review follows a two-pronged analysis: “(1) was there sufficient information upon

which to exercise discretion, and (2) did the juvenile court err in its application of discretion?”

Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d at 869. We review the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s

findings under the civil sufficiency of the evidence standards. Id. In determining whether there

was legally sufficient evidence to support a finding, “we consider evidence favorable to the finding

if a reasonable fact finder could and disregard evidence contrary to the finding unless a reasonable

fact finder could not.” Id. (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 827 (Tex. 2005)).

After considering all the evidence in the record, we will set aside a finding only if we determine

“the credible evidence supporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming

weight of all the evidence, as to be manifestly wrong.” Id. at 870 (citing Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d

175, 176 (Tex. 1986)).

       B. Analysis

       K.J.R.-M. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it committed her to TJJD

because it did not make reasonable efforts to place her in a home. K.J.R.-M.’s argument focuses

on her aunt’s changed circumstances. Our task is to determine whether there was sufficient

evidence to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion regarding the finding the Department

                                                 6
made reasonable efforts before committing K.J.R.-M. to TJJD. See Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d

at 869.

          The uncontradicted testimony established K.J.R.-M. was adjudicated for a felony and less

than three weeks later, absconded while on probation. It was uncontroverted, K.J.R.-M. did not

report to the Department, as required by her probation, for over than six months. During that time,

K.J.R.-M. violated her probation by: consuming or possessing marijuana; failing to report to her

probation officer; failing to remain in El Paso County; failing to comply with the GPS program;

failing to attend school; failing to attend family counseling sessions; failing to submit to drug tests;

and failing to abide by the terms and conditions of the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive

Action Program. K.J.R.-M.’s aunt testified to her ability and willingness to care for her, however,

it was uncontroverted the aunt’s criminal history included revoked state and federal probations.

The Department’s evidence showed K.J.R.-M. did not qualify for the Challenge program due to

the lack of a parent to participate. No alternative placement was put forth by either party.

          The record clearly demonstrates the Department originally rejected the option of placing

K.J.R.-M. with her aunt due to her aunt’s criminal history and the partner’s hesitancy. After

K.J.R.- M. absconded and failed to contact the Department for several months, the aunt’s partner

became willing to care for K.J.R.-M., but her aunt’s criminal history remained unchanged. Further,

the record demonstrated she had, like K.J.R.-M., violated her probation conditions subjecting her

to two revocations. Coupled with the unavailability of the Challenge Program supports the trial

court’s finding the Department made reasonable efforts to avoid placement of K.J.R.-M. at TJJD.

See Matter of V.L.T., 570 S.W.3d at 873 (holding evidence supported the trial court’s decision to

commit a felony-adjudicated juvenile to the Texas Youth Commission when the juvenile violated

probation multiple times and the Department provided testimony about other programs which were

                                                   7
considered but could not be utilized); In re J.L.H., No. 10-08-00126-CV, 2009 WL 201354, at *3

(Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 28, 2009, no pet.) (mem.op.) (holding evidence supported the trial court’s

reasonable efforts finding where the juvenile ran away from a previous placement and Department

did not approve juvenile’s placement with a parent because the parent had pending criminal

charges, unemployment, and lack of disciplinary skills). The record before us indicates the trial

court considered this evidence in modifying K.J.R.-M.’s probation to a TJJD commitment.

       The evidence provided sufficient basis showing the Department made reasonable efforts to

avoid placement at TJJD, it was in K.J.R,-M.’s best interest and there was no other alternative

placement. Here, we find sufficient evidence for the trial court to exercise its discretion. The

credible evidence demonstrates the commitment to TJJD, as opposed to with K.J.R.-M.’s aunt,

was not an abuse of discretion.

                                        CONCLUSION

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                               YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

June 6, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

                                                 8