Sec. 55.04. FORENSIC MENTAL EXAMINATION. (a) In this section, "forensic mental examination" means an examination by a disinterested physician or psychologist to determine if a child who is alleged by petition or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision is a child with mental illness, is unfit to proceed in juvenile court due to mental illness or an intellectual disability, or lacks responsibility for conduct due to mental illness or an intellectual disability.
(b) A juvenile court may order a forensic mental examination if the court determines that probable cause exists to believe that a child who is alleged by petition or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision is a child with mental illness, is unfit to proceed in juvenile court due to mental illness or an intellectual disability, or lacks responsibility for conduct due to mental illness or an intellectual disability.
(c) To qualify for appointment as an expert under this chapter, a physician or psychologist must:
(1) as appropriate, be a physician licensed in this state or be a psychologist licensed in this state who has a doctoral degree in psychology; and
(2) have the following certification or training:
(A) as appropriate, certification by:
(i) the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology with added or special qualifications in forensic psychiatry; or
(ii) the American Board of Professional Psychology in forensic psychology; or
(B) training consisting of:
(i) at least 24 hours of specialized forensic training relating to incompetency, fitness to proceed, lack of responsibility for conduct, or insanity evaluations; and
(ii) at least eight hours of continuing education relating to forensic evaluations, completed in the 12 months preceding the date of the appointment.
(d) In addition to meeting the qualifications required by Subsection (c), to be appointed as an expert, a physician or psychologist must have completed six hours of required continuing education in courses in forensic psychiatry or psychology, as appropriate, in the 24 months preceding the appointment.
(e) A court may appoint as an expert a physician or psychologist who does not meet the requirements of Subsections (c) and (d) only if the court determines that exigent circumstances require the court to appoint an expert with specialized expertise to examine the child that is not ordinarily possessed by a physician or psychologist who meets the requirements of Subsections (c) and (d).
Added by Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1166 (S.B. 1585), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases, 1976–1998 · leading case:
Pratt v. State, 907 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. App. 1995).
Pratt v. State, 907 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “Pratt’s counsel filed a motion to have Pratt evaluated for mental disease or defect pursuant to the Texas Family Code section 55.04. See Tex.”
Meza v. State, 543 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. App. 1976).
“” Texas Family Code Ann. § 55.04 provides in part as follows: “(a) No child who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings in juvenile court or to assist in his own defense shall be subjected to discretionary transfer to criminal court,…”
J.D., Matter Of, 773 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App. 1989).
“Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.04(a), (b), (c) (Vernon 1986) provides that if it appears on the court’s own notice or by suggestion of any party that the juvenile, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings or to assist in his own defense…”
Matter of M_____ H______, 662 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App. 1983).
“See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 55.04(c). The court made the requisite finding and we hold that a disposition requiring restitution is proper where such a finding is made without a specific pleading for restitution by the State.”
C.D.R. v. State, 827 S.W.2d 589 (Tex. App. 1992).
“In appellant’s first point of error, he contends that the trial court erred in finding that appellant engaged in delinquent conduct and subsequently transferring him to TDCJ without conducting a hearing to determine the fitness of appellant to stand trial pursuant to Tex.Fam.…”
R. K. A. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. App. 1977).
“The confusion arises because there is another statute which the child had the right to invoke at any time: Tex.Family Code Ann. § 55.04 (1975). That statute requires that if the child’s fitness to proceed is in question, then a determination of that issue must be made separate…”
In re M_ H, 662 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App. 1983).
“See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 55.04(c). The court made the requisite finding and we hold that a disposition requiring restitution is proper where such a finding is made without a specific pleading for restitution by the State.”
In re P.C., 970 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. App. 1998).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 55.04 , .05 (Vernon 1996).”
S.D.J. v. State, 879 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App. 1994).
“See TEX.FAM. CODE ANN. § 55.04 (Vernon 1986).”
Dominguez v. State, 546 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Family Code Ann. § 54.02 (1975). . Tex.”
T J.V. v. State, 899 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. App. 1995).
“Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.04(a) (Vernon 1986).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 55.04(a) — 3 cases
J.D., Matter Of, 773 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App. 1989).
“Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.04(a), (b), (c) (Vernon 1986) provides that if it appears on the court’s own notice or by suggestion of any party that the juvenile, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings or to assist in his own defense…”
T J.V. v. State, 899 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. App. 1995).
“Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.04(a) (Vernon 1986).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 55.04(c) — 3 cases
Matter of M_____ H______, 662 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App. 1983).
“See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 55.04(c). The court made the requisite finding and we hold that a disposition requiring restitution is proper where such a finding is made without a specific pleading for restitution by the State.”
In re M_ H, 662 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. App. 1983).
“See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 55.04(c). The court made the requisite finding and we hold that a disposition requiring restitution is proper where such a finding is made without a specific pleading for restitution by the State.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.