In the Matter of A.P., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Matter of A.P., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas (In the Matter of A.P., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 4, 2024
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00126-CV
IN THE MATTER OF A.P., A JUVENILE, Appellant
On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD-23-00824-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Nowell, Miskel, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove A.P. appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him a child engaged in
delinquent conduct. In a single issue, he contends the trial court abused its discretion
by ordering him placed in the custody of the chief probation officer for placement in
the STARS Residential Treatment Program. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND A.P. was fourteen years old when he entered the juvenile justice system. On
July 5, 2023, the State filed a petition alleging that A.P. committed an act that would
constitute aggravated sexual assault of a child; that charge was later reduced to injury
to a child. A.P. entered a plea of true, and the trial court found him to be a child
engaged in delinquent activity. At the disposition hearing, the State offered A.P.’s psychological evaluations
and predisposition reports. The predisposition report noted that on May 31, 2023,
A.P. pulled down his pants and exposed his penis to complaining witness A.C., an
eight-year-old girl. A.P. forced A.C.’s head down and instructed her to perform oral
sex on him. A.C. reported to a forensic interviewer that after she pushed A.P. away,
he pulled her pants down and made her sit on top of him. A.C. stated that his penis
touched her anus. Afterward, A.P. made A.C. “pinky promise” not to tell anyone.
The reports indicated that A.P. was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia, performed
well below grade level in all respects, and had a below average range of intellectual
functioning. The reports also indicated that prior to committing the charged offense,
A.P. participated in a Problematic Sexual Behavior Program at Dallas Children’s
Advocacy Center for approximately one year due to allegedly “hurting and sexually
touching” his younger sisters, both of whom were under age 14 at the time.
The State called A.P.’s probation officer, Antoine Salazar to testify. He
discussed all the observations made in the predisposition reports, and he testified to
the department’s recommendations for A.P. as follows:
It is respectfully recommended that the subject be assigned to Progressive Sanction Level V, and be placed on probation for a period of two years in the custody of the chief probation officer for placement at the Dallas County STARS Residential Treatment Program.
With regards to the orders affecting the parents or others, it is respectfully recommended that the parents participate in the parental component of the subject Court ordered placement. It is respectfully recommended that the subject[’s] mother be required to attend all, and
–2– participate in the child’s treatment program as deem[ed] necessary by the treatment team.
Salazar also testified that A.P.’s risk level was high and that his needs level was
moderate, and that he would benefit from a secure environment where he could
receive increased structure and counseling. He stated that reasonable efforts would
be made to return him to his father’s home as soon as possible. However, it was his
opinion that he could not be given the quality of care and level of support he needed
at his father’s home at that time.
A.P. called his parents to testify. His mother testified that she would drive
A.P. to counseling and support him in his treatment if he were allowed to remain in
his father’s home. His father testified that there were no minor children living in his
home, that any computers in the home would be kept in the public area if A.P. were
allowed to live in his home, and that A.P. would not have a smartphone. A.P.’s father
also testified that he would drive him to counseling appointments and support A.P.
in treatment. A.P.’s father testified that he would supervise A.P. and asked the court
to allow A.P. to stay at his home. Finally, A.P. himself testified that he would be
responsible for his own actions if released to his father’s home and promised that if
released, this would be the last time he is arrested.
The trial court concluded that remaining in his father’s home was not in A.P.’s
best interest. The court found he was in need of rehabilitation and that his
protection—and the protection of the public—required him to be placed on a two-
year probation, in the custody of the chief probation officer, for placement at the –3– STARS Residential Treatment Program. A.P. appeals his placement and seeks to be
allowed to return to his father’s home.
DISCUSSION The single question before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion
by placing A.P. away from his father’s home. Before the trial court can place a child
on probation outside the child’s home, the court must find the following: it is in the
child’s best interests to be so placed; reasonable efforts were made to prevent or
eliminate the need for the child’s removal from the home and to make it possible for
the child to return to his home; and the child, in his home, cannot be provided the
quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs to meet the
conditions of probation. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.04(i)(1). We review a trial
court’s disposition of a child found to be engaging in delinquent behavior for an
abuse of discretion. In re J.M., 433 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no
pet.) (citing In the Matter of K.E., 316 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010,
no pet.) (“A juvenile court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate
placement for a juvenile who has been adjudicated as engaging in delinquent
behavior.”). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted in an
unreasonable or arbitrary manner, without reference to guiding rules and principles.
Id. (citing K.E., 316 S.W.3d at 781).
The trial court found it was in A.P.’s best interests to be placed at the STARS
Residential Treatment Program where his educational and treatment needs could be
–4– met. The trial court further found that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent
the need for A.P.’s removal from his home and to make it possible for him to return
to his home as soon as possible. In the end, the court found that—if A.P. remained
at home—he could not be provided the quality of care and level of support and
supervision that he needed to meet the conditions of probation. See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 54.04(c), (i)(1). Based on those findings, the trial court signed its judgment
placing A.P. on probation for two years with placement in the STARS Residential
Treatment Program.
At the hearing, the trial court specifically noted that it was basing its decision
on concerns about A.P.’s father’s ability and willingness to “enforce the
accountability that would be required for [A.P.] to be successful, particularly with
respect to any type of treatment protocol” based on the father’s testimony and found
that as a result, a need for residential sex offender treatment necessitated placement
outside the father’s home.
We conclude the trial court’s ruling is reasonable in light of the evidence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of A.P., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-ap-a-juvenile-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.