X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Over the course of nearly five years, three orders of delinquent conduct were entered against T.v., for charges ranging from terroristic threats, to trespass, to possession of marijuana. T.V. was placed in at least three supervision centers, ordered to attend Challenge boot camp, placed in his mother’s house, and eventually sent to the Texas Youth Commission. The juvenile court’s last order was entered in April 2003. On appeal of that order, T.V. complains that the trial court violated both Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.31 and Civil Practice & Remedies Code �21.005 by not providing his hearing-impaired mother with a sign language interpreter. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court observes that T.v. does not dispute that he interpreted for his mother at the adjudication hearing, or that his mother brought her own interpreter to the disposition hearing. He merely argues that the juvenile court was nevertheless required to appoint a qualified interpreter for his mother. Article 38.31 governs the appointment of qualified interpreters for deaf defendants and witnesses in criminal proceedings. The former version of the rule is geared toward the right of confrontation, and was applicable only to the criminal defendant — or the juvenile, in this case, as made applicable by Family Code �51.17 — but not to the juvenile’s parents or guardians. In 2003, the Legislature amended �51.17(e) to include the following: “In any proceeding under this title, if a party notifies the court that the child, the child’s parent or guardian, or a witness is deaf, the court shall appoint a qualified interpreter to interpret the proceedings in any language, including sign language, that the deaf person can understand, as provided by Article 38.31, Code of Criminal Procedure.” Nonetheless, the court points out, this provision did not go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003, and T.v.’s disposition and adjudication hearings occurred before then, so the old section applies and Art. 38.31 does not require appointment of a sign language interpreter for T.v.’s mother. The court then agrees with the state that the Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not apply to juvenile proceedings, noting that the 2003 legislative fix would have been unnecessary if the civil code applied. The court goes on to address T.v.’s due process argument, assuming without deciding that violation of his rights would required appointment of an interpreter. However, the court cannot find that T.v.’s rights were violated. There is ample proof that T.v.’s mother fully participated in the proceedings, meaning that T.v. was not denied her support or advice for lack of a court-appointed interpreter. T.v.’s mother asked questions of the judge, and even argued with the judge when she complained her boss was getting mad at her for missing work. OPINION:McClure, J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and McClure, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.