in the Matter of J.M.G., a Juvenile
06-16-00011-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Juvenile J.M.G., born circa 2000, pled true to an allegation that in 2011 he engaged in conduct constituting indecency with a child by contact; the trial court adjudicated delinquent and committed him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) until his 19th birthday.
- J.M.G. has extensive, long-standing mental-health diagnoses (autism spectrum traits/Asperger’s, bipolar, ADHD, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depressive disorder) and an IQ of about 107; he has received special-education services and lengthy residential and outpatient treatment.
- His history includes repeated sexualized behaviors and allegations dating to age 2–11 (exposing himself, attempting sexual contact with siblings and peers, and alleged abuse by his sex-offender father), multiple hospitalizations, and several long residential treatment placements (Willow Bend, Pegasus) that documented noncompliance, aggression, program rule violations, and failure to complete later treatment phases.
- During the instant case J.M.G. was detained in juvenile detention; staff observed sexually inappropriate conduct there (masturbating in class) and treatment providers reported he admitted an inability to control sexual urges and required constant supervision.
- Juvenile probation and treatment professionals recommended TJJD commitment, concluding local residential programs or a boot-camp would not provide treatment beyond what J.M.G. already received and would not adequately protect the public or address his special needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by committing J.M.G. to TJJD instead of placing him on probation or in a less-restrictive secure boot-camp | J.M.G.: court should have placed him on probation with placement at a secured boot-camp in Grayson County (less restrictive treatment) | State/Respondent: prior local/residential programs and boot-camp options were similar to treatments already tried and failed; J.M.G. has special behavioral/mental-health needs and poses public-safety risks that warrant TJJD commitment | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence supported commitment to TJJD |
| Whether required statutory findings and assessments supported a special-commitment order under Tex. Fam. Code § 54.04013 | J.M.G. did not contest that the court made the required findings | State: trial court made the special-commitment findings after considering assessments and treatment history | Affirmed — trial court made required findings and reasonably applied statutory standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.D., 287 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (standard for reviewing juvenile-court disposition for abuse of discretion)
- In re J.R.C., 236 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (TJJD is most restrictive juvenile sanction; courts have discretion to choose appropriate placement)
- In re J.M., 287 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (abuse-of-discretion occurs when court acts arbitrarily or without guiding principles)
- In re M.A., 198 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (failure to complete local treatment can support TJJD commitment)