Juvenile

Treatment without Labels: An Effective Program for Juveniles Charged with a Sex Crime in Tarrant County

Imagine this: You receive a call out of the blue from a detective telling you that he is investigating your 11-year-old son for sexually touching your 6-year-old niece. How do you protect your young son who is being charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child? How do you choose between helping your son and helping your niece? Is there any way to get them both help without prosecuting your son? Will your son be labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life? Is there any way for your extended family to work this out?

While this may seem far-fetched, it happens more than you think. Fortunately, there is now a program in Tarrant County that can help without destroying the life of either child involved. It is called Project SAFeR.

What is Project SAFeR?

Project SAFeR (which stands for Safety and Family Resiliency) is a program in Tarrant County designed to help youth with problematic sexual behaviors who are between the ages of 7-12. There are three components to the program: legal, supervision, and counseling. The program, which started in July 2015, was created through a collaborative effort of Lena Pope Home, Alliance for Children, Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office, Child Protective Services (CPS), Tarrant County Juvenile Services, and local law enforcement. The purpose of the program is to help the victim, young juvenile, and their families deal with the problem in an effective way so that both children may go on to lead productive lives.

What is Problematic Sexual Behavior?

Problematic sexual behavior is that which is goes beyond what is normal sexual development for a child’s age. It usually involves children who are quite a bit different in age or who are not considered equals due to maturity, size, or other factors. A child with problematic sexual behaviors will act out on another child who is not a willing participant, either through the use of force, threats, bribery, or some other type of coercion or persuasion. Problematic sexual behaviors interfere with normal, nonsexual, childhood interests and behaviors, and usually continue even after a child’s behavior has been discovered and reprimanded.

The Legal Component of Project SAFeR

Because kids under the age of 10 cannot be prosecuted for their actions in Texas, children between the ages of 7-9 who have problematic sexual behaviors, can be referred to the counseling program but will not be required to participate in the diversion or supervision components. For these children, a parent can contact Lena Pope Home in Fort Worth at 817-255-2500 for help (see below for more specifics on the counseling component).

For children between the ages of 10-12, law enforcement and/or CPS will likely be involved to some extent. Many times, these cases will be referred to Tarrant County Juvenile Services and the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office Juvenile Unit.

In order to be eligible to participate in the legal, or diversion, component of Project SAFeR, the charged juvenile must be between the ages of 10-12. If a juvenile is older than 12, he will be ineligible for the diversion program. Other eligibility requirements for the program are:

• A multi-disciplinary team must decide that the case is appropriate for inclusion in the program based on the totality of the circumstances. This team screens cases for the program while they are still being investigated by CPS and law enforcement.
• The victim’s family must agree to the charged juvenile being in the program. If the victim’s family does not agree, this alone will make the juvenile ineligible.
• A risk assessment, which will be completed by the counselors involved in the program, must show the charged juvenile to be at a low risk to reoffend.

If all of these requirements are met, a juvenile’s case will be filed with the court by the prosecutor. The child will appear before a juvenile court judge and must admit to committing the offense. The judge will make a finding that there is enough evidence to find the juvenile guilty of the offense, but the judge will instead withhold judgement on the issue of delinquency and order the child into Project SAFeR.

If the juvenile successfully completes the supervision and counseling components of the program, the prosecutor will dismiss the case. If, however, the child is kicked out of the program, then he will return to court and will be found delinquent at that time and then will proceed to the disposition, or punishment, stage of the case. A juvenile who successfully completes Project SAFeR will, as a condition of the program, be eligible to have his record sealed upon his 16th birthday.

The Supervision Component of Project SAFeR

The supervision component of Project SAFeR is provided by Tarrant County Juvenile Services. If the child is allowed into the program, he will be assigned a juvenile probation officer who is a part of the Juvenile Offender Unit. The term of supervision will be up to 6 months in length. During that time, the juvenile must complete the counseling component of the program as well as go to school, not commit any new offenses, and obey his parents/guardians. The probation officer will check in on the juvenile, as well as check with his counselor and parents, on a regular basis while in the program.

The Sexual Counseling Component of Project SAFeR

The counseling piece of the program is provided by Lena Pope Home at their Fort Worth location. Both the child charged and at least one caregiver will be required to attend all counseling sessions while in the program. The counseling is once a week (on Monday nights) for 18 weeks.

The juvenile will attend a child’s group at the same time that his caregiver is attending a parents’ group each week. The two groups will be learning the similar material at the same time. So, for instance, during the week that the juvenile is learning the sexual behavior rules, his parent will be learning how to enforce those sexual behavior rules in the home. In addition to learning about sexual behavior rules and appropriate relationships, those in the program will also learn communication skills and stress relief strategies. Both the juvenile and parent must demonstrate that they have learned and are implementing the information taught in order to successfully complete the program. The counseling is provided free of charge to those in the program.

Outcomes and Benefits of Project SAFer

While this program has only been in existence in Tarrant County for a little over a year, it has been implemented in other parts of the country for many years. The program in Omaha, Nebraska, recently completed a 10-year follow-up study on those juveniles who completed their program. They found that of those who successfully completed the program, less than 2% committed a new sexual offense. This is a much lower reoffending rate than traditional sex offending treatment programs.

The majority of those who have been accepted into the Tarrant County Project SAFeR program have graduated. Many of those parents have indicated that the information they learned in the program not only helped them handle their children’s sexual behavior problems, but it also taught them to be better parents in general. The techniques and strategies taught in the counseling component have also been instrumental in helping parents to communicate better and have better relationships with their children. It has brought these families closer together.

Project SAFeR is taking a whole new approach to treating children with problematic sexual behaviors. It starts with NOT labeling or treating them as sex offenders. It approaches the problem from a family-focused point of view and treats it as a serious problem that the family can get through together, as opposed to treating the juvenile as if he is a sex offender who is doomed for the rest of his life. If your child is between the ages of 10-12 and is facing prosecution for a sex crime in Tarrant County, ask your attorney about whether Project SAFeR is the right approach for you and your family.

About the Author

Christy Dunn is a writer and attorney licensed to practice in Texas. She was a prosecutor for 15 years. The last five years of her prosecutorial career was spent in the Juvenile Division of the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office. She has tried over 20 juvenile cases in Texas and multiple certification hearings. She was part of the multidisciplinary team that created a Project SAFeR.

If a juvenile (a child between the ages of 10-16) is arrested, that person is taken to a juvenile detention center instead of jail. In the juvenile justice system, there is no such thing as bail. There is no amount of money a parent can pay to get their child out of detention. Instead, a detention hearing will be held. This article will explain what detention hearings are, why you need an attorney, and what happens during those hearings.

What Is a Juvenile Detention Hearing in Texas?

According to the Texas Family Code Section 54.01(a), a detention hearing is required to be held within two business days after a juvenile has been detained. If the juvenile is detained on a Friday or Saturday, then the detention hearing is required to be held on the first business day. If, after the initial hearing, a child is kept in detention, then the law requires additional detention hearings to be held every 10 business days for as long as that juvenile is in custody. If a juvenile is detained, his attorney can request an additional hearing sooner than 10 business days.

The purpose of these hearings is for a judge to determine whether the court should continue to detain that child or release him to a parent or another responsible adult while decisions about that juvenile’s case are made.

Family Code Section 54.01(e) requires that a juvenile be released at a detention hearing unless the judge finds that the juvenile:

• is likely to abscond,
• has inadequate supervision,
• does not have an adult to bring him back to court,
• is a danger to himself or the public safety, or
• has previously been adjudicated for an offense and is likely to commit another offense if released.

Does My Child Need an Attorney for the Juvenile Detention Hearing?

The short answer is yes. Section 51.10 of the Family Code gives a juvenile the right to an attorney at all important stages of the process, including the detention hearing. This section goes on to say that if a child is not represented by a lawyer at a detention hearing and is detained, the court must immediately either appoint him an attorney or order the family to hire one.

The court will only appoint a lawyer if the judge determines that the family is indigent based on the court’s financial guidelines. Most families won’t meet this standard. If the court does appoint an attorney, the court will determine who that person is. This is done by looking at who is next up on the list. Whether your child gets a good attorney, or a bad one, is decided by the luck of the draw.

You can, however, hire a lawyer to represent your child before the first, or any, detention hearing. If you hire an attorney, you will get to decide who that is. You can pick out one that you feel comfortable handling such an important matter for your child.

Why Should I Hire a Juvenile Defense Attorney as Opposed to Getting a Court-Appointed One?

It is best if you hire a lawyer for your child prior to the initial detention hearing. If the court appoints an attorney, that person will meet you and your child for the first time at the detention hearing. During that hearing, or minutes before, will be the first time that the appointed lawyer will hear anything about your child’s case. In some instances, you won’t have an opportunity to talk to the appointed attorney until after the detention hearing.

On the other hand, if you hire a lawyer, you will have a chance to meet with that person before the hearing. This will give the attorney an opportunity to learn about the case before walking into the courtroom for the detention hearing. This, in turn, will allow the lawyer to be better prepared to explain to the judge why she should release your child.

Additionally, an attorney is better equipped to represent your child if they are involved with the case from the very beginning. Many times, things are said during an initial detention hearing that may later become relevant to the underlying case and your child’s defense. If you wait until later in the process to hire an attorney, that person may never hear that relevant information. It is much more difficult for a lawyer to come into a case that is already ongoing than it is to be involved from the beginning.

What Happens During Juvenile Detention Hearings in Tarrant County?

The detention hearing is an informal hearing. Generally speaking, the following people will be present for it: the judge, the juvenile, an intake probation officer, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney. There may also be others present, such as a therapist, victim’s assistance officer, or a CPS worker.

After the judge warns the juvenile about his rights, the probation officer will summarize the reasons why the juvenile is in detention. This may include a summary of the police report and/or any probation violations that the juvenile is alleged to have committed. The probation officer will also detail the child’s history with the juvenile system.

Then, the judge will give the juvenile, the parent, the attorneys, and anyone else involved an opportunity to speak. Under Family Code Section 54.01(g), nothing the juvenile says during the detention hearing can be used at any later hearing. The judge may also have questions for one or more of the participants. Then, the judge will make his decision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a detention hearing is an informal method for a judge to determine whether a juvenile who has been detained should continue to be held in custody or released. Because of this purpose, the hearing is held relatively quickly after an arrest and then is repeated on a regular schedule for as long as a child is in detention. An attorney is required to represent the child at these hearings and should be retained as soon as possible.

About the Author

Christy Dunn is a writer and attorney licensed to practice in Texas. She was a prosecutor for 15 years. The last five years of her prosecutorial career was spent in the Juvenile Division of the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. She has tried over 20 juvenile cases in Texas and multiple certification hearings. She was part of a multidisciplinary team that created a juvenile diversion program for youth with problematic sexual behaviors.

In United States v. Sealed Juvenile, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals discusses how much oversight is too much when it comes to juvenile sex offenses.

Please note: This article discusses sexual abuse of a child. Generally speaking, the reason the court system treats juveniles differently from adults is because of the hope of rehabilitation and restoration of the juvenile offender to society. With everything from school to job searching on the internet these days, should juvenile sex offenders be able to be on the internet? Is strictly monitoring a juvenile sex offender’s internet usage, down to the keystroke, an imposition on constitutional rights, or is society providing oversight to a juvenile defendant with the hope of rehabilitation?

A Juvenile Sexual Assault Occurs on a Military Base

While living with his family on a military base, a fifteen-year-old sexually assaulted a four-year-old. He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §§2241(c), 5032 (2012), “engaging in a sexual act with a person who had not attained the age of 12 years.” The juvenile defendant had a history of psychiatric illnesses, such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Bipolar disorder. He had a pattern of sending sexually explicit letters to classmates at school. Before sentencing the district court ordered a probation officer to render a special report, which concluded, “in the last year the juvenile’s problems transformed from being anger-oriented to being sexually-oriented.” In a plea agreement, the juvenile pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of “abusive sexual conduct with a minor who had not attained the age of 12 years,” violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(5) (2012) and §5032.

The District Court Imposes Strict Sex Offender Conditions to Probation

The district court deemed the defendant a “juvenile delinquent” and sentenced him to eighteen months in a juvenile treatment facility and a term of juvenile delinquent supervision until he turned twenty-one. Further, the district court imposed four special conditions to his supervision

1. a restriction on the defendant’s contact with children,
2. choice of occupation,
3. prohibition on loitering in specific places, and
4. the use of computers and internet.

The juvenile appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the district court had not provided adequate reasons for imposing the special conditions at the sentencing hearing, and failed to explain how the special conditions were reasonably related to the offense.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b), courts may place discretionary conditions on probation, so long as the conditions are reasonably related to the factors set forth in such deprivations of liberty or property and are reasonably necessary. In doing so, the sentencing court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offenses and the “history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(2) (2012).

The Big Issue Before the Fifth Circuit | Were the Special Conditions of Probation Reasonably Related to the Offense?

The big issue before the Fifth Circuit was whether the conditions imposed by the district court were reasonably related to the offense, and if so, were they reasonably necessary. Did the district court provide adequate reasons for imposing the four special conditions? As the case was a matter of first impression, the Court examined each special condition and concluded in a surprising manner with regard to the internet and computer use.

Condition One: Restriction on Contact with Children

Under the first special condition, the juvenile was “not to have contact with children under the age of sixteen without prior written permission of the Probation Officer.” Further, he was required to “report unauthorized contact with children to the Probation Officer.” On appeal, the juvenile argued that this special condition was a “much greater deprivation of liberty…than reasonably necessary.” However, the Court disagreed with the juvenile. “Considering the threat posed by the juvenile based on his conviction [and other noted behaviors on record], we affirm this condition.” Also noting that the juvenile could attend school with permission of the Probation Officer, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court.

Condition Two: Choice of Occupation

Under the second special condition, the juvenile was “restricted from engaging in an occupation where he has access to children, without prior approval of the Probation Officer.” On appeal, the juvenile argued that the special condition was not reasonable and necessary because the offense was not related to work and that he would run a risk of never being able to be employed. The Court disagreed because the juvenile would be able to work upon prior permission from his Probation Officer. The Court affirmed the district court’s condition.

Condition Three: Prohibition on Loitering in Specific Places

Under the third special condition, the juvenile was not to “loiter within one-hundred feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, arcades, or other places primarily used by children under the age of sixteen.” The juvenile argued that the special condition was not reasonably related to his offense because his offense did not occur at a school. The Court disagreed. “The juvenile’s history of sending sexually explicit letters to girls at school means that he poses a threat to children at school.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s special condition.

Condition Four: Computer and Internet Use

Under the fourth special condition, the juvenile was (1) not to possess a computer with internet access without the prior approval of the Probation Officer; (2) to submit to searches under the direction of the Probation Officer that could include software scans of his technological devices; (3) to consent to a key logger on his personal devices and to consent to a search of each internet query; (4) to inventory and to provide receipts for all devices and bills pertaining to the internet and technology.

The juvenile argued that the restrictions on his computer and internet use were not reasonably related to his offense, and that the special condition would prevent him from job searching, completing homework, and emailing his therapists. The juvenile argued that even though he could access the internet, to do so would place a heavy burden on him to request permission each time he accessed the internet, or to report any misstep such as an errant search or a “pop up” on the internet.

The Fifth Circuit points out that the juvenile is mentally ill and needs some internet oversight. “We affirm the monitoring provisions because we recognize [they] ensur[e] that the juvenile complies with the restrictions against accessing sexually explicit materials.”

However, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the juvenile on some of the internet and computer usage restrictions. “We must recognize that access to computers and the Internet is essential to functioning in today’s society.” The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to construe the special condition so that the juvenile does not have to request permission from a Probation Officer each time he accesses the internet, removing what the Court deemed “a heavy burden” on the juvenile. Next, the Court modified the special condition that required the juvenile to provide receipts and payment records to the Probation Officer, “because the purpose is to verify that there have been no payments to an internet service provider, and payment for proper use should be made by the juvenile…there is no other basis to justify the restriction imposed by the [special condition].”

In sum, while the Fifth Circuit mostly affirmed the district court’s holding, it made some significant modifications where technology is concerned. Speaking to the hope of future rehabilitation, the Court added, “the juvenile may seek modification to any of the conditions, and the district court may lessen the burden of the [special conditions] if [his] behavior improves over time.”

What will happen to Ethan Couch?

We’ve recently been asked about fugitive Ethan Couch, the Texas teenager that was adjudicated of intoxication manslaughter, and the potential consequences for the “affluenza” teen once he’s caught. Juvenile determinate sentencing in Texas is an area of law with which most people are unfamiliar.  In this post, attorney Luke Williams explains some of the possible punishment scenarios for Ethan Couch under the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems.

Has Ethan Couch violated his probation?

Once Ethan Couch is apprehended, the State will have to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the teen violated a term or condition of his probation. Because juvenile records are confidential under Texas law, the public or press has not been made known of the details of Couch’s probation up to this point. But typically – at the very least – a juvenile probation in Tarrant County requires a juvenile to abstain from the use of drugs and alcohol, avoid persons or places who are using drugs and alcohol, and report regularly to the juvenile probation department.

In light of the recent Twitter video showing what purports to be Ethan Couch at a party involving alcohol and drinking games, there could potentially be evidence that he violated his probation by being amongst persons and at a place where persons are using alcohol. This could be difficult to prove. But, the more pressing problem for the teen now is his disappearance. He would undoubtedly have been required to check in with the juvenile probation department on a regular basis or when requested. At this point, as evidenced by the arrest warrant that has been activated for him, we know that he not checked in with probation as required. So, the State will likely have a much easier case to prove that he’s violated his probation by absconding.

Juvenile Probation is Discharged When the Probationer Turns 19 Unless the State Acts to Transfer

Ethan Couch’s probation term is scheduled to extend beyond his 19th birthday. However, the juvenile court will have to discharge Couch on his 19th birthday unless the court has acted earlier to transfer the probation to the appropriate criminal adult County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. This can (and likely will) be done by motion of the state prosecutor in Couch's case. If transferred, Couch would be under the jurisdiction of the county’s adult probation department and would face adult prison time should the probation be revoked. This would be the normal course of events had Couch not absconded.

What happens once the Ethan Couch is found?

If Couch is caught before he turns 19, and if the court finds that he has violated his probation, the court can either:

• Keep him on juvenile probation with changing anything (highly unlikely);
• Modify his probation to add new terms and conditions and keep him on probation; or
• Revoke his probation to commit him to the custody of Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) for a determinate sentence that “does not exceed the original sentence assessed by the court” (10 years). The court could commit the juvenile for a shorter sentence than originally assessed, but not for a longer one. See our earlier post to read more about determinate sentences.

If Couch is caught after he turns 19, we can presume that the State will have filed a motion to transfer the probation to adult supervision. If the probation is transferred to adult court, and Couch is found to have violated the probation, then the court could sentence him to serve his original sentence (up to 10 years) in the Texas Department of Corrections – Institutional Division (otherwise known as the adult penitentiary).

Again, because juvenile records are confidential under Texas law, details of Couch’s probation up to this point are unclear. So, there could be other details and/or Orders issued by the judge in Couch’s case that could change or negate the possible scenarios mentioned above.

Regardless, the fact that Couch remains missing is not a good thing for his future.

It seems like all I write about anymore is the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing a Court of Appeals case and siding with the State. Well, this post is no different.

In Taylor v. State, the appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 70 years confinement and a $10,000 fine for each offense. Much of the testimony at trial, however, related to acts appellant committed while he was a minor. The evidence showed that appellant began sexually abusing a young girl when he was 13 years old and she was 8. The abuse continued for several years, the final occurrence happening when appellant was 20 years old and the victim was 15.

Texas Penal Code Section 8.07(b) provides that unless a juvenile court waives (or has previously waived) jurisdiction and certifies an individual for criminal prosecution, "a person may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense committed before reaching 17 years of age."  Accordingly, while evidence was admitted at trial regarding appellant’s acts before he turned 17, he can only be convicted of those acts that occurred after he was 17.

The trial court failed to instruct the jury of this requirement and the jury returned a guilty verdict. On appeal, appellant argued that the jury charges were erroneous because they did not limit the jury’s consideration to evidence of acts committed after he turned 17. The 1st Court of Appeals (Houston) held that the Court was required to instruct the jury that appellant could not be convicted of criminal acts committed before he turned 17, and that appellant was denied a fair and impartial trial as a result. The Court of Appeals reversed the case.

The CCA now reverses the Court of Appeals. It agrees with the Court of Appeals that the instruction should have been given to the jury, even if neither party requested the instruction. But the CCA held, nonetheless, that the error did not deprive appellant of a fair and impartial trial. The CCA states:

Here, the error was the omission of an instruction, rather than the presentation to the jury of an erroneous instruction…[T]he jury in this case could have convicted Appellant based upon evidence presented, even if the proper instruction had been given and Appellant’s pre-seventeen acts were disregarded by the jury. The evidence showed an eight-year pattern of escalating sexual abuse of J.G. by Appellant. Appellant turned 17 years old midway through the abusive period, meaning that he is subject to prosecution for his conduct beginning on that birthday…and evidence of molestation that occurred after that date was introduced at trial.

So, basically the CCA is saying – “We don’t know from the face of the record exactly which instances of abuse the jury believed, and we can’t say with 100% certainty that they believed any of the instances after appellant was 17, but we know they definitely believed something happened at some time.”

The CCA ultimately concludes that Appellant was not denied a fair and impartial trial. My question is – “How do we know that?” I realize that appellant said he didn’t commit any of the alleged acts and I also realize that the jury, by their verdict, believed that he did.  But how do we know that the jury didn’t conclude that the appellant was guilty of only those acts that occurred when he was a minor?  We don’t.