Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 3. JUVENILE JUSTICE CODE · CHAPTER 55. PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING CHILDREN WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 55.05 (2026)

Criteria For Court-ordered Mental Health Services For Child

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 55.05. CRITERIA FOR COURT-ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILD. (a) A juvenile court may order a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to receive temporary inpatient mental health services only if the court finds, from clear and convincing evidence, that:

(1) the child is a child with mental illness; and

(2) as a result of that mental illness, the child:

(A) is likely to cause serious harm to the child's self;

(B) is likely to cause serious harm to others; or

(C) is:

(i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;

(ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of the child's ability to function independently; and

(iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to treatment or is unwilling to submit to treatment.

(b) A juvenile court may order a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to receive temporary outpatient mental health services only if the court finds:

(1) that appropriate mental health services are available to the child; and

(2) clear and convincing evidence that:

(A) the child is a child with severe and persistent mental illness;

(B) as a result of the mental illness, the child will, if not treated, experience deterioration of the ability to function independently to the extent that the child will be unable to live safely in the community without court-ordered outpatient mental health services;

(C) outpatient mental health services are needed to prevent a relapse that would likely result in serious harm to the child or others; and

(D) the child has an inability to effectively and voluntarily participate in outpatient treatment services, demonstrated by:

(i) any of the child's actions occurring within the two-year period preceding the date of the hearing; or

(ii) specific characteristics of the child's clinical condition that significantly impair the child's ability to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to voluntary outpatient treatment.

(c) A juvenile court may order a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to receive extended inpatient mental health services only if the court finds, from clear and convincing evidence, that, in addition to the findings in Subsection (a):

(1) the child's condition is expected to continue for more than 90 days; and

(2) the child has received court-ordered inpatient mental health services under this chapter or under Chapter 574, Health and Safety Code, for at least 60 consecutive days during the preceding 12 months.

(d) A juvenile court may order a child who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to receive extended outpatient mental health services only if, in addition to the findings in Subsection (b):

(1) the child's condition is expected to continue for more than 90 days; and

(2) the child has received:

(A) court-ordered inpatient mental health services under this chapter or under Chapter 574, Health and Safety Code, for at least 60 consecutive days during the preceding 12 months; or

(B) court-ordered outpatient mental health services under this chapter or under Chapter 574, Health and Safety Code, during the preceding 60 days.

Added by Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1166 (S.B. 1585), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: W.D.A. v. State, 835 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
W.D.A. v. State, 835 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992). · cites it 2× “; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.05. If the Legislature had meant to coordinate the Penal Code definition with the Family Code definition, it could have done so.”
R. K. A. v. State, 553 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. App. 1977). “” Tex.Family Code Ann. § 55.05 (1975). The child has not been accused of either delinquent conduct or of conduct indicating a need for supervision.”
WDA v. State, 835 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992). · cites it 2× “; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.05. If the Legislature had meant to coordinate the Penal Code definition with the Family Code definition, it could have done so.”
RKA v. State, 553 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1977). “" Tex.Family Code Ann. § 55.05 (1975). The child has not been accused of either delinquent conduct or of conduct indicating a need for supervision.”
Ex Parte T.W.A., No. 10-22-00022-CV (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 24, 2022). “3 The Texas Family Code provision in effect at the time of T.”
in the Matter of L. J. G., No. 03-99-00412-CV (Tex. App.—Austin July 13, 2000). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 55.05 (West 1996). (1) The issue of appellant's responsibility was tried in conjunction with his adjudication on April 29 and 30, 1999.”
in the Matter of B.J.S., No. 03-90-00194-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 26, 1992). “(1) At the disposition hearing, the jury sentenced appellant to commitment in the Texas Youth Commission with transfer to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for thirty years, the petition having been previously approved by the grand jury.”
in the Matter of A. E. P., No. 03-96-00495-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 17, 1997). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 55.05 (b) (West 1996).”
L. J. S., Matter Of, 613 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. App. 1981). “Tex. Family Code Ann. § 55.05 (f). The evidence in this matter included the testimony of an eye witness who was the owner and golf professional at the Quail Hollow Golf Club in Bonham, Texas.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 55.05(a): 2 cases
W.D.A. v. State, 835 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992). “; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.05. If the Legislature had meant to coordinate the Penal Code definition with the Family Code definition, it could have done so.”
WDA v. State, 835 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992). “; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 55.05. If the Legislature had meant to coordinate the Penal Code definition with the Family Code definition, it could have done so.”
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.