By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
No abuse of discretion in TYC commitment
(00-3-01)
On June 8, 2000, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to the Texas Youth
Commission.
00-3-01. In the Matter of T.S.J., UNPUBLISHED, No. 08-99-00336-CV, 2000 WL
730771, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ____ (Tex.App.--El Paso 6/8/00) [Texas Juvenile Law
.185 (4th Ed.1996)].
Facts: Fifteen-year-old T.S.J. appeals from the trial court's adjudication and
commitment order finding that she violated the terms of her one-year probation,
and committing her to the Texas Youth Commission ("TYC") for an
indeterminate period of time not to extend beyond her twenty-first birthday.
T.S.J.'s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in committing her to
TYC when she and her family requested that she be committed to a private
facility in Austin, Texas, where her family could be closer, help her
rehabilitation efforts, and where she could receive more personalized service
than the "general treatment" offered at a TYC facility. [FN1] T.S.J.
contends that the only criteria the trial court used in placing her in a TYC
facility was cost. Although the record contains much discussion about cost, we
find the trial court was presented with evidence of other factors, and that it
did not abuse its discretion.
FN1. T.S.J. points to no place in the record to support the claim that a private
facility offers better service than a TYC facility. Our review of the record,
however, revealed that T.S.J.'s mother formed her opinion that a private
facility would be better than TYC after seeing her niece and nephew, who had
been committed to TYC, had not been helped by TYC's services.
Also, T.S.J. mentions numerous times in her appellate brief that the court's
disposition allows T.S.J. to be placed in the first available TYC facility but
this is not what the record reflects. The record shows that every juvenile
committed to TYC is first sent to the assessment unit in Marlin, Texas, and the
results of the assessment are used to select the most appropriate facility for
the particular juvenile's needs and situation.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: The standard we employ in this case is abuse of discretion. A
juvenile court is vested with broad discretion to determine a suitable
disposition of a child adjudicated delinquent. The test for abuse of discretion
is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and
principles or whether the act was arbitrary and unreasonable.
To support her point, T.S.J. relies solely on In re L.G. [FN5] That case,
however, differs from the one before us in two important ways: (1) the issue in
L.G. was not whether the juvenile should have been placed in a private facility
instead of TYC; rather, the issue was whether the trial court abused its
discretion in committing the juvenile at all; and (2) there was no evidence in
L.G. that the juvenile needed the strict environment of TYC.
FN5. 728 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.--Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The guiding principles for commitment to TYC are:
(i) If the court places the child on probation outside the child's home or
commits the child to the Texas Youth Commission, the court shall include in its
order its determination that:
(1) it is in the child's best interests to be placed outside the child's home;
(2) reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the
child's removal from the home and to make it possible for the child to return to
the child's home; and
(3) the child, in the child's home, cannot be provided the quality of care and
level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of
probation. [FN8]
FN8. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.04(i) (Vernon Supp.2000).
Here, the trial court received evidence on and was guided by these principles.
First, T.S.J.'s probation officer, Jeff Leyva, testified that the juvenile
probation office recommended that she be placed in a TYC facility. He stated
that in his opinion, it was in T.S.J.'s best interest to be committed to TYC,
and it would be the most likely means to her rehabilitation. Additionally, TYC
has facilities that could meet her psychiatric and schooling needs, not to
mention TYC's programs that are available to help her with trust issues and
anger management. Leyva also testified that TYC is the superior option for T.S.J.,
even over private facilities that also take adjudicated delinquents because, as
a state-funded facility, TYC has an after-care program that would monitor and
supervise her progress after her release from TYC. No private facilities offered
such a program.
Second, evidence was presented that reasonable efforts had been made to keep
T.S.J. in her home. The Midland County Juvenile Probation Department worked with
T.S.J. for two in-home probationary periods. The first probationary period was
not completed successfully. As part of her probation, T.S.J. was ordered to
participate in Project PACT and MHMR, but these programs were not successful.
Third, Leyva testified that, in his opinion, there was evidence that T.S.J. had
no home available in Midland County that would offer the level of support,
supervision, care, and custody that would allow her to maintain a successful
probation. During this second probationary period, Leyva stated that T.S.J.
showed no improvement. In fact, T.S.J. had nine referrals for new offenses, as
well as nine additional referrals for probation violations, during her probation
in her mother's home.
The language in the trial court's Adjudication and Commitment Order tracks Texas
Family Code Section 54.04(i). Also, the court stated its reasons for placing
T.S.J. in the care of TYC:
(1) The child is presently experiencing problems with the home environment and
the community and it is necessary to place [her] in an alternative situation in
order for [her] to continue [her] education.
(2) Probation at home is not feasible as the home is not capable of providing
for the child's needs and will not serve his best interest, and the only
alternative presently available to the juvenile court consist of facilities
provided by the Texas Youth Commission.
(3) The parent has no control or influence over the child, and, as indicated by
[her] past activities within the community, the community not only needs to be
protected but the child needs to change [her] behavior.
(4) The child has previously shown [her] inability to adjust [her] behavior in
the home environment and through the traditional juvenile justice system within
the community, and it appears to the Court that [she] needs a structured
environment to serve [her] best interest.
(5) The child's in-court outburst following the announcement of TYC commitment
prevented the making of a further record in this case and particular reference
is made to these internal findings since the Court, for its own safety and to
possibly calm the child, exited the courtroom and the child was restrained and
removed; said outburst being further indication of the child's inability to
remain under probation or in the home....
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, the trial court stated that
T.S.J. needed assistance in her education and required additional counseling in
a structured, supervised environment, and "unfortunately, TYC meets all of
those qualifications."
Considering the trial court's application of Section 54.04(i), we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in committing T.S.J. in TYC,
rather than placing her in a private facility. T.S.J.'s issue on appeal is
overruled.