Juvenile delinquency proceedings must provide constitutionally mandated due process of law. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1436, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); L.G.R. v. State, 724 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex. 1987); Hidalgo v. State, 983 S.W.2d 746, 751 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 841-42 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied). However, the process due a juvenile offender does not equate to that due an adult offender in every instance.

Settled law establishes that juvenile delinquency proceedings must provide constitutionally-mandated due process of law. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1436, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); L.G.R. v. State, 724 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex. 1987); In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 841-42 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied); see also R.X.F. v. State, 921 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, no writ) ("Our view is that the state can no more deny a juvenile equal protection of the law in a determinate-sentence proceeding than it can an adult in a criminal proceeding."). However, the process due a juvenile delinquent does not equate to that due an adult offender in every instance.

See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1 However, even if we believed that Appellant had properly preserved this issue, we would conclude that Appellant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. Appellant relies on the opinion of this Court in the case of In the Matter of J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 839-40 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied), for the position that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to a pre-disposition report. However, our holding in that case did not reach such a broad finding.

In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied).Id.

Because of this difference in purpose, juveniles were denied many rights, both procedural and substantive, that were routinely afforded adults.In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied).Id.

At a disposition hearing, notwithstanding the Texas Rules of Evidence, the juvenile court "may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, guardians ad litem appointed under [Family Code] Section 51.11(d), or professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses." Tex. Fam. Code § 54.04(b). Section 54.04(b) "broaden[s] the pool of information available for the trial court's consideration at the disposition hearing." In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 844 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied). "[T]he juvenile court should have available to it as much information as possible to inform its determination of what disposition is appropriate in a given case."

"We have no quarrel with this interpretation of Section 54.04(b) and fully agree that the juvenile court should have available to it as much information as possible to inform its determination of what disposition is appropriate in a given case." In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 844 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied).

See Ortega v. State, No. 05-00-00086-CR, 2002 WL 14163, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Relying on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 469-71 (1981) and In re J.S.S., 20 S.W.3d 837, 846 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, pet. denied), Z.T. argues that, based on her rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, she could not be compelled to respond to questions regarding her past. But Z.T. was not compelled to answer questions and her right to remain silent, assuming it applied, was never violated. What Z.T. failed to demonstrate to the juvenile court, and fails to explain on appeal, is what additional information, if any, Wright could have uncovered about alleged abuse in the home given Z.T.'s unwillingness to answer questions.

A child may be found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision only after an adjudication hearing. Id . § 54.03(a) (West 2014). Texas courts must construe provisions of the juvenile justice code such that "parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights [are] recognized and enforced." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.01(6) (West 2014); In re J.S.S ., 20 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2000, pet. denied). Juvenile delinquency proceedings are "quasi-criminal" in nature and therefore criminal rules of procedure must be looked to for guidance.

DISCUSSION Appellant relies on In the Matter of J.S.S., in which the El Paso Court of Appeals held that, under the specific facts of that case, the Fifth Amendment applied to a probation officer's pre-disposition interview with a juvenile, and the juvenile should have been warned of his rights and informed that his statements could be used against him during the disposition hearing. 20 S.W.3d 837, 846-47 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000, pet. denied). The El Paso Court found that the probation officer's interview of the juvenile "exceeded any arguably neutral purposes" by questioning the juvenile about two extraneous offenses.