appellant, in his home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs and the TYC will?

Yo,Peachy King why not tell these misers to put their "truancy" by putting a "matching" facility on the south side (Cine 6) that will meet the needs of the bike riders and skateboarders rec center?

Tru or false?

Lock up instead of physical education, why would an educated attorney ASSume that a government agency would possess the ability to:

"Under the record in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant, 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."

Does that eliminate probation and enforces the incarceration with no Ways or means of oversight to insure that "provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that he needs to meet the conditions of probation."

Hearsay
conjecture
speculation
clairvoyant
provide proof that he was better off,when it all started with "providers" of education or incarceration or "probation"????

What a waste of time this judge made of this child's future, without the insurance that this judge alleges will meet the needs in the "quality of care and level of support"

How is the child going to be "cared for"?


What quality is this judge "quality" defined by?

The same standard she would give for her own child?

I doubt it, with what intent was this child harmed??????

Where is the child's attorney?
















NUMBER 13-04-552-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________



J.A.W.R., A CHILD, Appellant,



v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________



On appeal from the County Court of Refugio County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez



Appellant, J.A.W.R., a child, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct[1] by committing the offense of endangering a child.[2] He was committed to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him committed to the Texas Youth Commission. We affirm. As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A juvenile judge has broad discretion to determine the proper disposition of a child who has been adjudicated as engaging in delinquent behavior. In re K.J.N., 103 S.W.3d 465, 465-66 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 2003, no pet.). Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court=s determination. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts unreasonably or arbitrarily and without reference to guiding rules and principles. Id. The guiding rules and principles in juvenile cases involving commitment outside the child=s home are found in the Texas Family Code. Id.; see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

The family code permits a trial judge to commit a child to the Texas Youth Commission if: (1) it is in the child=s best interest to be placed outside the home; (2) reasonable efforts have been taken to prevent or eliminate the need for the child=s removal from the home; and (3) while in the home, the child cannot receive the quality of care and level of support and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04(i).



II. ANALYSIS

By his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant committed to the Texas Youth Commission. Specifically, appellant argues that there is no evidence to support the trial court=s finding that Athe 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.@[3] We disagree.

At the disposition hearing the State offered into evidence the Predisposition and Social History report prepared by the juvenile department. The recommendation in the report was that appellant be placed outside the home due to his need for more structure and discipline than was being provided by his parents. The report stated that appellant had been unsuccessful on a six-month deferred adjudication and unsuccessful on the subsequent court-ordered probation. Appellant was also unsuccessful on a second court-ordered probation on another cause. He was exhibiting serious signs of mental and emotional instability as well as more serious behavioral problems than in the past. The report also stated that appellant had failed to graduate to the eleventh grade because he did not complete his makeup work or his absences. Appellant had been referred for truancy.

Under the record in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that appellant, 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. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to the Texas Youth Commission. Appellant=s sole point of error is overruled.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.



NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice



Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 7th day of July, 2005.



[1] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 51.03 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

[2] See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.041(c) (Vernon 2003).

[3] Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in making the following findings: (1) that no community-based intermediate sanction is available to adequately address the needs of the juvenile or to adequately protect the needs of the community; and (2) that the gravity of the offense requires that the juvenile be confined to a secure facility. However, these findings made by the trial court are not required by statute in order to commit a juvenile to the Texas Youth Commission. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.04(i) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Therefore, we will not address these findings as our conclusion would not affect the disposition of this appeal.