Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca, 13-25-00405-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Victoria County, Texas
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order committing a minor to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) following a second modification of disposition. The Court held that the State presented legally and factually sufficient evidence to satisfy the “reasonable efforts” requirement of the Texas Family Code by documenting the exhaustive, yet unsuccessful, use of community-based supervision, psychiatric services, and post-adjudication facility placement.
Relevance to Family Law
While primarily a juvenile delinquency matter, this opinion offers a critical analysis of the “reasonable efforts” standard under Texas Family Code § 54.05(m)(1)(B), a requirement that mirrors evidentiary burdens in high-stakes SAPCR and DFPS litigation. For family law practitioners, the case underscores the evidentiary threshold required to justify the removal of a child from the home when behavioral or mental health issues are at the forefront. It illustrates how a record of failed “graduated sanctions” and unsuccessful intermediate placements—such as those involving specialized counseling or residential programs—can be leveraged to prove that a child’s needs can no longer be met within the family unit or local community.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
M.A.R. Jr. was twelve years old when he was initially adjudicated for felony retaliation and placed on probation in the custody of his grandmother. Following several violations, including new criminal offenses and an assault on a teacher, the juvenile court modified his disposition, placing him in the Victoria Regional Juvenile Justice Detention Facility. Despite this escalation in supervision, M.A.R. Jr.’s behavior deteriorated significantly; during a five-month period, he accumulated 350 minor incident reports and 46 major incident reports, eventually leading to an unsuccessful discharge from the facility.
During the subsequent modification hearing, M.A.R. Jr. raised a defense regarding his mental responsibility, noting diagnoses of autism, ADHD, and anxiety. A forensic evaluation by Dr. Danielle Todaro concluded that while the child had significant mental health conditions, he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct. Although the child’s father appeared at the hearing and expressed a willingness to take custody, the trial court found that the local probation department had exhausted all available resources. Consequently, the court committed M.A.R. Jr. to TJJD for an indeterminate period.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the child’s removal from the home pursuant to Texas Family Code § 54.05(m)(1)(B).
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Family Code § 54.05(m)(1)(B), which prohibits a court from committing a child to TJJD unless it finds that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal from the home. The Court also examined § 54.04013, which allows for commitment if the child has behavioral health or special needs that cannot be met by community resources. Under the applicable standard of review, the appellate court evaluates the entire record to determine if the factfinder could reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction that the statutory requirements were met.
Application
The Court’s analysis centered on the chronology of interventions provided to M.A.R. Jr. The legal story here is one of escalating state intervention that failed to mitigate the juvenile’s delinquent conduct. The Court observed that the State did not move for TJJD commitment as a first resort. Instead, the record reflected a history of “reasonable efforts” including initial community supervision, referrals to South Texas Psychiatry and Victoria Counseling, and finally, a placement in a post-adjudication facility.
The Court reasoned that the child’s inability to conform his conduct even within the highly structured environment of a detention facility—evidenced by the sheer volume of incident reports—demonstrated that local resources were no longer viable. Furthermore, the Court addressed the father’s request for custody, concluding that “reasonable efforts” do not mandate placement with a non-guardian parent if such placement fails to ensure the safety of the public or the rehabilitation of the child. The Court emphasized that the juvenile court is not required to exhaust every possible alternative, but rather to show that the efforts made were reasonable under the specific circumstances of the case.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent removal. The Court determined that the State successfully documented a trajectory of failed local interventions that justified the necessity of TJJD commitment.
The Court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that M.A.R. Jr.’s behavioral and mental health needs could not be met by community resources. The holding affirms that once a child has proven to be a “serious threat to facility safety” in local programs, the statutory requirements for state-level commitment are satisfied.
Practical Application
For the practitioner, this case emphasizes the importance of the “paper trail” in modification proceedings. To successfully defend a “reasonable efforts” finding on appeal, the record must contain specific data regarding the frequency and nature of failed interventions. Conversely, if representing a respondent, counsel should focus on local resources that the State neglected to utilize—such as specific wrap-around services or alternative kinship placements that were never vetted—to argue that the State’s efforts were not truly “reasonable” or exhaustive.
Checklists
Gathering Evidence of “Reasonable Efforts”
- Compile a chronological list of all community-based referrals (counseling, CSR, etc.).
- Obtain all incident reports and disciplinary logs from intermediate placements or “post-adjudication” facilities.
- Secure testimony from probation officers regarding the specific “graduated sanctions” applied prior to the motion for TJJD.
- Document the specific failures of the home environment (e.g., violations occurring while under the guardian’s supervision).
Challenging a TJJD Commitment
- Identify specific local behavioral health resources (e.g., specialized non-profits or private facilities) that the State did not attempt to access.
- Cross-examine the State’s witnesses on the “viability” of kinship placements—did the State actually perform a home study on the alternative parent/relative?
- Scrutinize the forensic mental health evaluation to determine if the child’s “lack of capacity” was adequately addressed as a mitigating factor for the “efforts” required.
Citation
In the Matter of M.A.R. Jr., No. 13-25-00405-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~7d3cc769-545c-4090-8199-90374024f2cb~~
Share this content: