in the Matter of D.P., Child
02-15-00181-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Juvenile D.P. was adjudicated delinquent for possessing cocaine in a correctional facility (third-degree felony) after stipulating to the evidence; the trial court ordered commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) until his 19th birthday.
- D.P. was 17 at disposition and faced transfer to the adult system if he reoffended; he had multiple prior adjudications (evading arrest, robbery) and probation violations over ~2 years.
- Records showed chronic drug use, sporadic or failed outpatient treatment, prior CPS removal, parental drug use, history of running away, unstable home environment, and significant academic deficits (reading/spelling ~3rd grade; math ~2nd grade).
- A psychologist diagnosed major depressive disorder, an anxiety disorder, ADHD, and polysubstance abuse; recommended residential substance-abuse placement among other interventions but did not specify a statutory juvenile disposition.
- Brookhaven Youth Ranch (residential treatment) had accepted D.P. but could not admit him until about a month after the disposition hearing; probation officer and court found D.P. required more than substance-abuse treatment given his multiple needs and limited juvenile time remaining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commitment to TJJD was an abuse of discretion because less restrictive Brookhaven placement was available | D.P.: commitment legally and factually insufficient—trial court failed to find reasonable efforts to avoid removal, could have used Brookhaven, TJJD not necessary | State/Respondent: trial court may consider broader needs; not required to exhaust alternatives; Brookhaven admission delay and D.P.’s multiple problems supported TJJD | Affirmed: court found legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting commitment and no abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence supported findings that reasonable efforts were made and placement outside home was necessary | D.P.: argued record lacked support for those findings | State: presented history of CPS removal, parental drug use, instability, running away | Held: more than a scintilla supported findings; findings also factually sufficient |
| Whether facilities/services existed to meet D.P.’s needs (i.e., Brookhaven adequate) | D.P.: Brookhaven could address substance abuse and was less restrictive | State: D.P. had needs beyond substance abuse (behavioral, academic, psychiatric); Brookhaven delay and imminent age limited juvenile options | Held: court may choose TJJD; evidence supported conclusion Brookhaven insufficient/timely |
| Whether TJJD could meet educational/mental-health needs better than alternatives | D.P.: contested that TJJD was necessary for education/therapy | State: psychologist recommended multiple services; TJJD could provide broader rehabilitative programming given time constraints | Held: trial court reasonably found TJJD could meet needs; evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D.P., 85 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (juvenile court has broad discretion in disposition)
- In re C.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency relevant to abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re J.R.C., 236 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (trial court not required to exhaust all alternatives before committing juvenile to TJJD)