In the Matter of R.M.--Appeal from 386th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00066-CV
IN THE MATTER OF R.M., a Child
From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-JUV-00081
Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2003

AFFIRMED

Following R.M.'s plea of true to the charge of possession with intent to use inhalant paraphernalia, the trial court committed R.M. to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission ("TYC"). R.M. appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the disposition order.

Standard of Review

In his sole issue on appeal, R.M. argues that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order of commitment because the record does not provide the evidence needed to justify the court's commitment of R.M. to TYC. Although R.M's specific criticism is framed as an evidentiary challenge, we review the trial court's juvenile disposition order under a criminal abuse of discretion standard -- divorced from evidentiary standards of legal and factual sufficiency. In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d 65, 74-75 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, affording almost total deference to findings of historical fact that are supported by the record. Id. at 75. However, when the resolution of the factual issue does not turn upon an evaluation of credibility or demeanor, we review the trial court's determination of the applicable law, as well as its application of the appropriate law to the facts it has found, de novo. Id.

Discussion

The trial court's order committing R.M. to TYC is supported by the record. The record includes evidence of R.M's extended involvement with the probation department, R.M.'s home environment, and the probation department's past attempts to rehabilitate R.M. On January 22, 2003, R.M.'s probation officer testified that R.M. was fifteen and had been receiving services from the probation department since March of 1999, when R.M. was offered deferred adjudication for a criminal trespass. A number of referrals to the department followed, including a second criminal trespass, evading arrest, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Additionally, R.M. violated his probation by being involved in reported expulsion and truancy; however, no action was taken regarding these reports. R.M. also admitted to his probation officer that he associated with different gang members throughout the years.

With regard to his home environment, R.M's probation officer testified that R.M's brother had also been involved with the department. Additionally, he stated that the family "has moved and is unstable. The mother is not working and has just moved again, recently."

With regard to past treatment attempts, R.M's probation officer testified that R.M. had received the following treatment and services: individual, family, and substance abuse counseling; Family Violence Prevention Services; Victim's Impact Panel participation; and fourteen months of treatment at Southton, a juvenile correctional treatment center. In spite of these attempts, within two months of being discharged from the Southton program, R.M. was again referred to the probation department for possession of inhalants and intent to use inhalants. During those two months, R.M. failed to report to probation. R.M.'s probation officer recommended that R.M. be committed to TYC.

The prosecutor concurred with the probation officer's recommendation. Without objection, the prosecutor testified that in spite of the services R.M. had received, R.M. continued to get in trouble and was not following the rules of probation at home or at school. R.M. had inadequate supervision at home and continued to be a danger to himself with his drug use and abuse. According to the prosecutor, in addition to using inhalants, R.M. also admitted to using marijuana.

R.M. argues that instead of committing R.M. to TYC, the trial court could have sent R.M to a drug education program. R.M. also argues that the evidence provided little support for the finding that "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." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 54.04(i) (Vernon 2002). R.M. argues that it is questionable whether unemployment and moving can constitute family instability or "inadequate supervision" of a juvenile by a parent.

We conclude that the evidence supports the trial court's findings. See In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d at 75. The trial court heard evidence of numerous treatments that had been provided to R.M. in the past and of R.M.'s lapse into his delinquent behavior following the completion of these treatments. These lapses support the trial court's finding that the support and supervision R.M. was being provided at home were insufficient.

Conclusion

In light of this evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing R.M. to TYC. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

1. The Honorable Laura Parker, Presiding Judge of the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, approved the adjudication and disposition presided over by Referee Patrick J. Garza.