In the Best Interest and Protection of J.A.--Appeal from Probate Court No 1 of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-02-00613-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.
From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002MH1743
Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 22, 2003

AFFIRMED

J.A. appeals the trial court's order committing him for court-ordered temporary mental health services. In two points of error, J.A. contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's order, and the trial court's order was in violation of his due process rights. We affirm the trial court's order.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The trial court based its order on the following findings: (1) J.A. is mentally ill; and (2) J.A. is: (A) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress; (B) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of his ability to function independently, which is exhibited by his inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for his basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and (C) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment. The evidence in support of these findings must be clear and convincing. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.034(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re Breeden, 4 S.W.3d 782, 784 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.); see also In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 22 (Tex. 2002) (adopting firm belief or conviction as factual sufficiency standard where clear and convincing proof is required). In order for the evidence to be clear and convincing to support the trial court's second finding, the evidence must include expert testimony of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm J.A.'s distress and the deterioration of J.A.'s ability to function. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.034(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002)

The clerk's record contains two physician's certifications of medical examination for mental illness. The first certification prepared on August 8, 2002, by Dr. Steven Achinger diagnosed J.A. as having psychosis not otherwise specified. The following details were stated as the basis for Dr. Achinger's opinion: (1) J.A. stated that his aunt was after him for his money; (2) J.A. talks to himself; (3) J.A. refused to attend his hygiene; (4) J.A. believes that his aunt is trying to kill him; (5) J.A. has a history of violence; and (5) J.A. is behaving in a disorganized manner severely impairing his functioning. The second certification prepared on August 19, 2002, by Dr. Myrna Tucker also diagnosed J.A. as having a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. The following details were stated as the basis for Dr. Tucker's opinion: (1) J.A. stated that nothing is wrong with him; (2) J.A. is very isolative and barely talks; (3) J.A. appears to be attending to internal stimuli; (4) J.A. is paranoid; (5) J.A. has pronounced thought blocking and no insight; (6) J.A. is not motivated for treatment and does not participate in psychological rehabilitative activities. At the hearing, J.A. testified that he wanted to go home where he lived with his uncle and that he had been looking for a job. Dr. Tucker testified that J.A. giggles to himself as if he is hearing auditory hallucinations. J.A. had isolated himself since he was admitted to the hospital and had not participated in treatment. J.A. was paranoid and delusional. J.A. had to be prompted to feed and clothe himself. Dr. Tucker was uncertain whether J.A. was planning retaliation against his aunt for having him picked up and noted that J.A. was recently incarcerated for six months for assaulting his aunt.

The evidence is sufficient to produce a firm belief that J.A. continues to be paranoid and delusional and continues to have hallucinations. J.A. only cares for his basic needs when prompted to do so and declines to participate in treatment to improve his mental health. J.A. had been incarcerated for assaulting his aunt, who was the person responsible for having J.A. picked up, and J.A. had made delusional statements regarding his aunt less than two weeks before the commitment hearing. J.A.'s refusal of treatment and his continued pattern of behavior with regard to his aunt, coupled with J.A.'s history of violence, is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. J.A.'s first point of error is overruled.

Due Process

In his second issue, J.A. appears to contend that the manner in which the commitment hearing was conducted violated his due process rights. Specifically, J.A. complains that the trial court, rather than the State, questioned the State's sole witness, and the witness was never qualified as an expert. J.A.'s attorney never objected to the manner in which the hearing was conducted. Constitutional complaints must be asserted in the trial court in order for the complaint to be preserved for appellate review. In re H.W., 85 S.W.3d 348, 355 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2002, no pet.). J.A.'s attorney was able to question Dr. Tucker but did not challenge her qualifications. J.A.'s second point of error is overruled.

Conclusion

The trial court's order is affirmed.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

PUBLISH

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.