In the Matter of A.P., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas

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. See

In re M.A.C., 339 S.W.3d 781, 784 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011, no pet.) (giving

“almost total deference” to the trial court’s application-of-law-to-fact questions that

turn on the evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of witnesses in a juvenile

delinquency case) (citing Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652–53 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002)). We discern no abuse of discretion in A.P.’s placement. See J.M., 433 S.W.3d

at 796; K.E., 316 S.W.3d at 781. We overrule his single issue.

–5–
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Maricela Breedlove/
240126f.p05 MARICELA BREEDLOVE
JUSTICE

–6–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF A.P., A On Appeal from the 305th Judicial
JUVENILE District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. JD-23-00824-
No. 05-24-00126-CV X.
Opinion delivered by Justice
Breedlove. Justices Nowell and
Miskel participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of December, 2024.

–7–