T.L.T., Matter Of

Court of Appeals of Texas

T.L.T., Matter Of

909 S.W.2d 949, 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2388, 1995 WL 594977

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 5, 1995

DocketNo. 11-95-236-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 909 S.W.2d 949 (T.L.T., Matter Of) 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.

Bluebook

T.L.T., Matter Of, 909 S.W.2d 949, 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2388, 1995 WL 594977 (Tex. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a hearing, the trial court committed T.L.T. to the Harris County Psychiatric Cen[950]*950ter for 90 days.¹ T.L.T. appeals.² We reverse and remand.

In her first point of error, T.L.T. contends that the trial court failed to specify which of three criteria set forth in Section 574.034(a)(2) formed the basis for its decision. The trial court utilized a fill-in-the-blank form for its judgment. The form listed the three criteria in the disjunctive and provided a space for the court to mark the appropriate finding. The trial court marked all three spaces. T.L.T. argues that, because the trial court marked all three criteria which were submitted disjunctively and not con-junctively, there are no specific findings. We agree.

Section 574.034(b) states that the “judge or jury must specify which criterion listed in Subsection (a)(2) forms the basis for the decision.” We agree with the Texarkana and San Antonio Courts of Appeals that multiple marks on a fill-in-the-blank form which lists the grounds for commitment in the disjunctive does not constitute specific findings for the basis of the decision to commit. In re J.J., 900 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1995, no writ); In re J.S.C., 812 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1991, no writ). The first point of error is sustained.

In her second point of error, T.L.T. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and seeks a remand. We interpret her point to be a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence. In light of our holding on the first point, we do not reach the second point of error.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After a hearing, the trial court committed T.L.T. to the Harris County Psychiatric Cen[950]*950ter for 90 days.¹ T.L.T. appeals.² We reverse and remand.

In her first point of error, T.L.T. contends that the trial court failed to specify which of three criteria set forth in Section 574.034(a)(2) formed the basis for its decision. The trial court utilized a fill-in-the-blank form for its judgment. The form listed the three criteria in the disjunctive and provided a space for the court to mark the appropriate finding. The trial court marked all three spaces. T.L.T. argues that, because the trial court marked all three criteria which were submitted disjunctively and not con-junctively, there are no specific findings. We agree.

Section 574.034(b) states that the “judge or jury must specify which criterion listed in Subsection (a)(2) forms the basis for the decision.” We agree with the Texarkana and San Antonio Courts of Appeals that multiple marks on a fill-in-the-blank form which lists the grounds for commitment in the disjunctive does not constitute specific findings for the basis of the decision to commit. In re J.J., 900 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1995, no writ); In re J.S.C., 812 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1991, no writ). The first point of error is sustained.

In her second point of error, T.L.T. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and seeks a remand. We interpret her point to be a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence. In light of our holding on the first point, we do not reach the second point of error.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 S.W.2d 949, 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2388, 1995 WL 594977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tlt-matter-of-texapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack