Opinion
No. 05-16-00821-CV
10-11-2017
IN THE MATTER OF N.T., a Child
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. JD-82149-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Francis
N.T., a minor, appeals the trial court's judgment committing him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for eight years. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by committing him to the TJJD because the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings that (1) it was in his best interests to be placed outside his home and (2) reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for his removal from home and to make it possible for him to return home. Because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the challenged findings, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
On March 22, 2016, appellant entered a plea of true to the State's petition alleging he engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court accepted the plea and found appellant was a child engaged in delinquent conduct.
At the start of the disposition portion of the hearing, the State introduced several reports into evidence, including a Predisposition Report, a Psychological Assessment, and a Predisposition Report Addendum. The Predisposition Report, which was submitted by the director of juvenile services, summarized the offense to which appellant pleaded true. The report stated that, on the afternoon of January 7, 2016, appellant was driving a vehicle when a passenger riding with him fired three shots at a car being driven by fifteen-year-old J. Benitez. Benitez's mother and two of his siblings were also in the car at the time. Both appellant and the passenger knew Benitez from school and were following him for some distance before the shooting took place.
The Predisposition Report went on to discuss appellant's home life. Appellant lived in a studio apartment with his parents and three siblings. Appellant's mother reported the apartment was in a poor neighborhood riddled with crime, drug addicts, and alcoholics. Appellant had a good relationship with his mother and siblings, but his father was an alcoholic with a criminal history that included assault, family violence, driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license, sexual assault of a child, and failure to register as a sex offender.
According to appellant's mother, appellant would run away from home to be with his friends, skip school, and sneak out at night while she was asleep. When appellant ran away from home, he would stay with his friends. Appellant said that some of them have criminal histories and use drugs and, when they spent time together, they would sometimes commit crimes.
At school, appellant had problems with behavior, attendance, and grades. He had a history of suspensions because of disruptive behavior and was two years behind academically. Due to his disruptive behavior, appellant was referred to Metrocare for counseling services. Appellant and his mother participated in counseling and appellant was evaluated monthly from March 2015 through July 2015. The Predisposition Report withheld making any recommendations on disposition pending completion of a psychological examination, but noted "the determinate-nature of the offenses, which involved the use of a deadly weapon, association with negative peers, poor grades and attendance at school, and a lack of respect for others."
The Psychological Assessment showed appellant underwent a psychological examination one month after the Predisposition Report was filed. During the examination, appellant denied ever running away from home or that he had a history of disruptive behavior and truancy at school. The examiner stated appellant was in need of "increased levels of supervision and structure at home" and would benefit from "intensive in-home therapy in order to address the strained parental relationship with his father, poor communication, poor decision making, poor judgment, poor peer selection, and involvement in high risk situations." The examiner further stated that "[appellant's] interactions with negative peers should be completely eliminated." Following the assessment, an addendum to the Predisposition Report was filed recommending that appellant "be assigned to progressive sanction level five (5) and be placed on probation for one (1) year in the custody of the Chief Probation Officer for placement at the Lyle B. Medlock Treatment Center."
In addition to the reports, the evidence at the disposition hearing included the testimony of three witnesses: Maurice Sauls, the liaison officer for the Dallas juvenile department; R. Benitez, the mother of J. Benitez; and S.T., appellant's mother. Sauls reiterated the recommendation in the Predisposition Report Addendum that appellant be removed from his home for one year and placed in the Lyle B. Medlock Treatment Center. R. Benitez testified her family had become extremely fearful since the shooting and asked that appellant be punished.
S.T. requested that appellant's disposition be postponed and appellant be allowed to come home for thirty days to demonstrate his willingness to improve his behavior. S.T. promised to keep him away from his peers and to be "in control of him." While she was at work, appellant's father would supervise him. S.T. conceded she had difficulty controlling appellant in the past.
At the end of the hearing, the trial court determined disposition was required for appellant's protection and rehabilitation and for protection of the public. The court found "all reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove [appellant] from [his] home" had been made, but appellant needed a structured environment and his home could not provide "the quality of care, level of supervision, and support necessary to meet the terms and conditions of probation." The court then held that commitment to the TJJD was in appellant's best interest and required based on the nature of the case. Appellant brings this appeal challenging the trial court's disposition.
A juvenile court has broad discretion to determine the proper disposition of a child adjudicated as engaging in delinquent conduct. See In re C.G., 162 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the court's findings. Id.
For a trial court to commit a juvenile to the TJJD, it must find and include in the disposition order a determination that:
(A) it is in the child's best interests to be placed outside the home;See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.04(i) (West Supp. 2016). Appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the first two of these required findings. Under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. See In re C.G., 62 S.W.3d at 452. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the findings, and we set aside the judgment only if there is no evidence of probative force to support them. Id. In our factual sufficiency review, we consider and weigh all the evidence and set aside the judgment only if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Id.
(B) 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
(C) 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.
With respect to the first finding, the evidence showed appellant was inadequately supervised at home which contributed to a history of running away as well as association with negative peers and poor school behavior. Appellant's mother worked outside the home, leaving appellant in the care of his alcoholic father who had a criminal record including family violence and sexual assault of a child. The apartment in which appellant's family lived was in a dangerous neighborhood and appellant's friends were involved with drugs and crime. This evidence is sufficient to support the finding that it was in appellant's best interest to be placed outside his home.
Appellant does not contend there is anything in the record to rebut the evidence showing placement outside his home was in his best interest. Instead, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in not placing him at the Lyle B. Medlock Treatment Facility as recommended in the Predisposition Report. Appellant suggests the trial court was required to render a disposition using the least restrictive option available. But the court need not exhaust all possible alternatives before committing a juvenile to the TJJD. See In re M.O., 451 S.W.3d 910, 915 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.). The court need only make the findings required by section 54.04(i). See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.04(i). In this case, the court made the necessary findings and stated the nature of the case required that appellant be committed to the TJJD.
Appellant next contends the evidence showed no efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for his removal from his home. We disagree. The Predisposition Report shows appellant was previously referred to Metrocare for counseling services. Although he and his mother received counseling, and appellant was evaluated on a monthly basis, he continued many of his destructive behaviors. Appellant ran away from home approximately one week before being arrested for the present offense. Again, appellant points to the less restrictive options available to the trial court. But the court was not required to explore those options before committing appellant to the TJJD . See In re M.O., 451 S.W.3d at 915.
After reviewing the record, we conclude sufficient evidence of probative force exists to support the trial court's findings. We also conclude the findings are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. See In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420, 429 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to the TJJD. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1
160821F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. JD-82149-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered October 11, 2017.