in Re M.A.R. ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00778-CV
IN RE M.A.R.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-JUV-00929
Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 2, 2012
AFFIRMED
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in
modifying M.A.R.’s disposition by continuing him on probation in the care, custody, and control
of the chief juvenile probation officer instead of in the care, custody, and control of his paternal
grandparents. We affirm the trial court’s order.
A juvenile judge has broad discretion to determine a suitable disposition of a child who
has been adjudicated as engaging in delinquent behavior. In re P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d 368, 370
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not
disturb the court’s modification of a juvenile’s disposition. Id. A court abuses its discretion
04-11-00778-CV
when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or
principles. Id.
M.A.R. was adjudged to have engaged in delinquent conduct for committing the offense
of theft and was placed on probation in the care, custody, and control of his mother. In response
to the State’s motion to modify his disposition, M.A.R. pled true to violating the conditions of
his probation by leaving home without permission and failing to comply with electronic
monitoring. After a series of three hearings, the trial court determined that placement outside the
home in the care, custody, and control of the chief juvenile probation officer was appropriate
because: “respondent [M.A.R.] needs treatment for substance abuse; the respondent has a long
and/or extensive history with the probation department; parent has insufficient skills to properly
supervise her child; child in need [of] therapeutic and structured environment; history of
runaway; cannbis [sic] abuse and dependence.”
M.A.R. does not challenge the foregoing findings, which are supported by the record.
The record establishes that M.A.R. had seven prior adjudications and had previously been placed
outside of the home on two occasions. The record supports that M.A.R. began abusing
substances at the age of 11 and has a history of alcohol and drug dependence, including daily use
of marijuana. Although M.A.R.’s drug tests were negative before he left his mother’s home
without permission, no subsequent tests were performed between the date he left his mother’s
home and the disposition hearing several months later. M.A.R.’s probation officer testified
regarding M.A.R.’s reluctance to follow family rules, albeit in the home of his mother as
opposed to the home of his paternal grandparents. Although a subsequent assessment
determined that M.A.R. “may” be appropriate for outpatient substance abuse treatment, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that M.A.R.’s history demonstrated that a more
-2-
04-11-00778-CV
therapeutic and structured environment was appropriate, especially in view of his history of
running away from family members who imposed rules on him. Although M.A.R. may believe
“he would do well on probation in his grandparent’s home,” based on the record presented, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing him in the care, custody, and control of the chief
juvenile probation officer.
The trial court’s order is affirmed.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
-3-