## Facts

- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition against D.E.P., and the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent under Tex. Fam. Code § 51.03.
- The court entered a probationary disposition with conditions, including a requirement that D.E.P. continue attending school in the Angleton school district and warning that violation could result in confinement in a state juvenile facility.
- During the proceedings, D.E.P. lived with an uncle in Angleton and registered to attend school there.
- Shortly after the adjudication, the uncle moved outside the Angleton district; D.E.P.’s parents lived in a different district, and D.E.P. no longer resided within Angleton.
- The State filed a motion to modify disposition alleging D.E.P. violated probation by not attending school in Angleton.
- After a modification hearing, the juvenile court found a probation violation and modified disposition by committing D.E.P. to the Texas Youth Council.
- D.E.P. appealed only the modification order; the original adjudication and probation order were not appealed and had become final.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support modification of disposition committing D.E.P. to state custody based on an alleged probation violation.
2. Whether a probation condition requiring attendance in a specific school district can support commitment when the juvenile’s compliance became impossible due to a change in residence beyond the juvenile’s control.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order modifying disposition and set aside the commitment.
- The court held the record did not provide a legally or factually sufficient basis to treat D.E.P.’s nonattendance in the Angleton district as a probation violation warranting commitment.
- The appeal concerned only the modification order; the underlying delinquency adjudication and original probationary disposition were not subject to review.

## Legal Principles

- A juvenile disposition may be modified to a more restrictive placement only upon proof of a probation violation that provides a sufficient basis for the increased restraint.
- A modification order cannot rest solely on noncompliance with a probation condition that has become impossible to perform through circumstances not attributable to the juvenile.
- In modification proceedings, the reviewing court focuses on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the alleged violation forming the basis for the modified disposition, not the correctness of the original adjudication or disposition when those orders are final.

## Conclusion

Because the only alleged probation violation was failure to attend school in a particular district after D.E.P. became unable to do so due to a residence change beyond his control, the evidence did not support modifying the disposition to commitment, and the commitment order was reversed and set aside.


In re D.E.P., 512 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, no writ)