To modify the disposition to commit a child outside the home, the trial court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court. TEX.FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(f), (j); In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123, 127 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.), citing In re L.R., 67 S.W.3d 332, 335 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.). Juvenile courts have broad discretion in determining the proper disposition of children adjudicated to have engaged in delinquent conduct, and this is especially true in hearings to modify dispositions.

A disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of this state or the United States of the grade of felony may be modified to commit the child to the TYC if the trial court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court. Tex.Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(f), (j) (Vernon Supp. 2007); In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123, 127 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.), citing In re L.R., 67 S.W.3d 332, 335 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.). The Family Code provides that if the juvenile court places the child on probation outside the child's home or commits the child to the Texas Youth Commission, the court:

"When juveniles challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support an adjudication of a penal offense requiring proof by the State beyond a reasonable doubt as the basis for the finding of delinquency, the appellate court applies a criminal standard of review." In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123, 127 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.). However, a motion to modify the disposition of a previous adjudication requires proof of a violation of the juvenile court's order by a preponderance of the evidence.

Juvenile courts are vested with broad discretion in determining the suitable disposition of children found to have engaged in delinquent conduct. In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123, 128 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.); In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). This is particularly true in hearings to modify disposition.

Finally, a sexual assault victim's uncorroborated testimony is sufficient evidence to support an adjudication.In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123, 127 (Tex. App. 2003) (providing that when a juvenile challenges the "sufficiency of [the] evidence to support an adjudication of a penal offense requiring proof by the State beyond a reasonable doubt as the basis for the finding of delinquency, the appellate court applies a criminal standard of review"); see also In re Donald R., 796 N.E.2d 670, 677 (Ill. App Ct. 2003) (applying criminal standard to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile sex offender proceedings); Davis v. State, 110 Nev. 1107, 881 P.2d 657 (1994) (stating that a judgment of conviction will be affirmed if supported by sufficient evidence).

Thus, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by so deciding. The El Paso court of appeals also addressed a similar issue in a modification case in In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.). The court considered itself "informed" by the required findings set out in Section 54.04(i), and then looked to see if there was evidence to support the decision of the trial court to place the juvenile in a program that was not the least restrictive available.

; In re Z.L.B., 115 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App.(Dallas 2003, no pet.); In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App.(El Paso 2003, no pet.); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex.App.(Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).

; In re Z.L.B., 115 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App. — Dallas 2003, no pet.); In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App. — El Paso 2003, no pet.); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).

Therefore, we apply the same standards of review in juvenile cases challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as we do in criminal cases. In re L.F.L.T.B., 137 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2004, no pet.); In re Z.L.B., 115 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); In re E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.); In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

An appellate court applies the same standards applicable to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases. In re L.F.L.T.B., 137 S.W.3d 856 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2004, no pet.); In the Matter of Z.L.B., 115 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); In the Matter of E.R.L., 109 S.W.3d 123 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2003, no pet.); In the Matter of J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). To determine if the evidence is legally sufficient, we must review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.