T.J., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE (2023)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In January of 2023, after committing a number of delinquent acts and refusing to abide by the juvenile court's conditions of his release to his parents’ care, fifteen-year-old T.J. was placed in the custody of the Southwest Youth Village (“SYV”) pending the conclusion of delinquency proceedings. At various points during the pendency of the delinquency proceedings, T.J. was released to his parents’ care, only to be returned to the SYV's custody after he had violated the conditions of his release. T.J. has displayed a refusal to recognize authority and has engaged in escalating threatening and violent behaviors. On February 24, 2023, after finding T.J. to be a delinquent child, the juvenile court committed him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). T.J. challenges his commitment to the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] T.J. was born on September 18, 2007. On January 9, 2023, officers with the Princeton Police Department were dispatched to the home of T.J.’s father to investigate a report of criminal mischief. T.J.’s father informed the responding officers that fifteen-year-old T.J. and T.J.’s uncle had argued the night before due to T.J. “disrespecting the uncle.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 21. T.J.’s father indicated that he had awoken earlier that morning “to what sounded like glass breaking” and had “looked out the front door and noticed [T.J.] walking away from” his residence. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 21. Later that morning, T.J.’s father noticed that a bedroom window “had been busted (broken) out with a red brick that was laying underneath the broken window.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 21.

[3] With T.J.’s parents’ permission, officers met with T.J. at school and attempted to advise him of his Miranda ¹ rights. T.J. became verbally abusive towards the officers, indicating that he “was going to beat [the officer's a[**]” and “punch the s[***] out of [the officer] when he see's [sic] me on the street.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 21. In addition, while being placed under arrest, T.J. resisted by “pulling away from officers during the handcuffing process.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 21. T.J. was eventually detained at the SYV, where he tested positive for marijuana upon his arrival.

[4] The juvenile court conducted a detention hearing on January 10, 2023, during which the juvenile court indicated that it would release T.J. into his parents’ custody. The juvenile court placed conditions upon T.J.’s release including an 8:00 p.m. curfew and an order for T.J. to abide by “whatever restrictions [his parents] impose[d] upon” him. Tr. Vol. II p. 7. T.J. informed the juvenile court that he would not abide by the court's conditions, stating, “I ain't doing that” and indicating that he disagreed with “all of it.” Tr. Vol. II p. 8. Given T.J.’s explicit refusal to comply with the conditions of release imposed by the juvenile court, the juvenile court ordered his continued detention, ordering that he would “remain in the custody of the [SYV].” Tr. Vol. II p. 8.

[5] On January 11, 2023, the State filed a petition alleging that T.J. was delinquent for committing what would be Level 6 felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult. On January 12, 2023, the trial court held another hearing. During this hearing, T.J. agreed to comply with the court's conditions that he be home by 8:00 p.m., visit with peers only at his parents’ discretion, and attend school regularly. Given T.J.’s indication that he would comply with the conditions set forth by the juvenile court, the juvenile court released him to his parents’ custody.

[6] However, one hour after the hearing, T.J. violated the terms of his release by refusing to go to school. Based on T.J.’s refusal to abide by the juvenile court's conditions for release and his “failure to comply with” household rules, T.J.’s mother informed the juvenile court on January 13, 2023, that she was no longer willing to accept him into her household. Tr. Vol. II p. 25. Noting that neither parent was willing to accept T.J. into their household, the juvenile court stated that “[a]t this point, because I do not have a parent that's willing, I believe I have no other option but to continue detention of [T.J.].” Tr. Vol. II p. 25.

[7] On January 24, 2023, T.J. admitted to committing the acts of intimidation and resisting law enforcement and the State moved to dismiss the remaining criminal-mischief allegation. T.J.’s mother informed the juvenile court that she was willing “to take him home.” Tr. Vol. II p. 37. The juvenile court released T.J. to his parents’ custody, imposing the following conditions upon his release: “1) nightly curfew of 8:00 p.m., unless parents consent otherwise, 2) peers will be at the discretion of the parents, 3) attend school and participate, 4) not allowed at grandma's house, 4) follow all parent's rules.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 30. T.J. agreed to follow the conditions of his release.

[8] On February 6, 2023, Probation Officer Tara Kilps filed an affidavit with the juvenile court in which she averred that T.J. had violated the conditions of his release. Kilps further averred that she had met with T.J. and his mother on February 2, 2023, for the purpose of completing her pre-dispositional report. Although T.J. was initially “appropriate in his answers and making eye contact,” once the conversation proceeded to

talking about his drug usage, mental health, and how he is behaving since being released from secure detention, [T.J.] became rude and would not participate with questions further. [T.J.] pulled his hood of his sweatshirt up and would mumble under his breath when [Kilps] was asking [his] mother questions. [T.J.] told [Kilps] that she needed “to stay in her lane and grow up, man”, at one time he just laughed and said, “this is all a joke and (this PO) is hilarious”. [T.J.] stated that he will be doing “4 months of probation and you (PO) need to leave him the f[***] alone and let him do his time”. He called [Kilps] a “n[*****]” on a few occasions during the interview. When talking about his conditions that the judge put in place for him to be released to his mother, he said that he could “do what he wants” and he has school functions and can stay out till 10”. [T.J.’s] mother tried to talk to [him] and advised him that his “mouth” is a problem, and he should not talk to people that way. [T.J.] would not listen to his mother and stated, “leave me alone”.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 41–42. Kilps further averred that T.J.’s mother had resorted to writing notes to her “so [T.J.] didn't interrupt the conversation.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 42. At some point during the meeting, Kilps “called law enforcement to come to the office due to [T.J.’s] behavior.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 42. When the officer arrived, T.J. “called the officer ‘fat a[**] n[*****].” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 42.

[9] The juvenile court conducted a detention hearing on February 7, 2023. During this hearing, the juvenile court heard testimony indicating that on February 4, 2023, “law enforcement was called ․ after 11 p.m. due to [T.J.] not being home.” Tr. Vol. II p. 47. T.J. had subsequently been located at his grandmother's home, in violation of the conditions of his release. T.J.’s father also indicated that he believed that he had observed T.J. smoking (admitting that he could not say for sure), and that T.J. had been attending school and otherwise following his rules. The juvenile court also heard testimony indicating that T.J. had also refused six drug screens, with T.J. telling the juvenile court that he “ain't going to take one for no reason.” Tr. Vol. II p. 51. Given T.J.’s violations of the conditions of his release and his refusal to submit to various drug screens, the juvenile court ordered that he be “placed in secured custody at an available youth detention center.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 44.

[10] On February 24, 2023, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing during which Kilps recommended that wardship be granted to the DOC. In support of her recommendation, Kilps testified that T.J. had displayed aggression toward her in a recent conversation, calling her a “b[****]” and saying that “he would spit in [her] a[**].” Tr. Vol. II p. 62. She further testified about two incidents that had occurred in the days leading up to the dispositional hearing. During the first incident, T.J. had threatened to beat up staff members at the SYV and had discussed an attempted escape from the facility with another juvenile. In the second, which had occurred the day before the dispositional hearing, T.J. “ended up beating up another juvenile at” the SYV. Tr. Vol. II p. 64. Kilps further noted that despite the numerous court orders and the fact that he had previously received counseling and taken medication, T.J. “does not see the need to change his behaviors.” Tr. Vol. II p. 65. Kilps further opined that T.J. did not appear to recognize authority “at all.” Tr. Vol. II p. 65.

[11] In placing T.J. in the DOC and finding that there were no less-restrictive options available, the juvenile court found as follows:

The Court will note certain factors, so I will also, I guess, before proceeding, take judicial notice of the prior proceedings as well as any recordings or audio contained therein.

One thing that was not mentioned here today, but because I've taken judicial notice of those proceedings, I will also note that at a previous hearing, [T.J.] left the proceeding before it was over with and was yelling in the background on behalf -- at the [SYV] and had returned to a cell, which they could not get him back to the phone.

I did ask the probation officer to find the least restrictive means to effectuate rehabilitation. That was attempted on at least two separate occasions during the pendency of this case when we allowed him to go home and see if there was any education or things that could be had on behalf of parents. Those were unsuccessful.

I will not take into account the language, although I will note it's inappropriate. I do believe that even inappropriate and not a professional setting, he does have a First Amendment right, and that language is somewhat protected to an extent. I will also note that Father is willing to attempt to take him home.

I will note in the counter to that, more so in the way of concerning facts or aggravators, is that some of these events happened in Father's home at the outset of this case, which does not give the Court a lot of confidence that he is able to control himself, even placed on home detention at your house. I believe we originally started here because where police were called.

I'll also note that, based on the testimony here today, the reason why he ended up at [Father's] house is because someone came looking for him with an incident involving a firearm at Mother's home during the pendency of this case. On multiple occasions, both parents have been able -- unable or unwilling to control his behavior to a point where they were accepting of him returning to their household at that time.

I will note the incident reports, one from February 21st and one from February 23, the first of which we had an incident where the juvenile was planning to escape from the [SYV], and the second of which there was actually a physical altercation during the pendency of this case that could and may end up resulting in additional charges potentially in Knox County as a battery scenario. I will also note that they are of extremely high relevance because I've provided an advisement during every proceeding that, in large part, the outcome of these cases are affected by the behavior during the pendency, since we are looking at rehabilitation, and both of those incidents happened within the last 72 hours, I think that is extremely relevant. I will also note that they happened in a facility that is a lock and key facility, but would potentially provide a least restrictive means and closer to the residence of the juvenile than the [DOC].

Tr. Vol. II pp. 75–77. The juvenile court concluded that

because the Court does not have confidence in his safety or the safety of the folks that he would be around if he was returned back to a household in which he originally offended, the juvenile had many issues with following least restrictive rules and regulations put in front of the Court in order to remain out at home instead of detained, and for -- because of the recent incidents at a semi-secure facility, the Court will note that we have tried to exercise multiple options of least restrictive means other than [DOC] and that has been unsuccessful and will sentence or place disposition with the [DOC] ․ School for Boys at this time.

Tr. Vol. II p. 77.

Discussion and Decision

[12] At the outset, we note that “the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly different from the criminal justice system.” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987)). “Specifically, the goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a criminal as an adult.” Id. (emphasis in original). “Accordingly, juvenile courts have a variety of placement choices for juveniles who have delinquency problems, none of which are considered sentences.” Id.

[13] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the trial court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. We review a trial court's disposition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.

J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal citations omitted), trans. denied.

[14] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 provides that, if consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that:

(1) is:

(A) in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available; and

(B) close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child;

(2) least interferes with family autonomy;

(3) is least disruptive of family life;

(4) imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and

(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.

[15] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-9(a) provides that the “juvenile court shall accompany the court's dispositional decree with written findings and conclusions upon the record concerning approval, modification, or rejection of the dispositional recommendations submitted in the predispositional report.” Such written findings shall include:

(1) The needs of the child for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement.

(2) The need for participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the plan of care for the child.

(3) Efforts made, if the child is removed from the child's parent, guardian, or custodian, to:

(A) prevent the child's removal from; or

(B) reunite the child with;

the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.

(4) Family services that were offered and provided to:

(A) the child; or

(B) the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.

(5) The court's reasons for the disposition.

(6) Whether the child is a dual status child under [Indiana Code article] 31-41.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a).

[16] In challenging the juvenile court's order, T.J. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering that he be committed to the DOC, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to consider a less-restrictive placement. However, the record clearly demonstrates that the juvenile court made numerous attempts at placing T.J. in a less-restrictive placement, i.e., with his parents and in the SYV, but that T.J. had failed to take advantage of either of these less-restrictive placements or to modify his behavior. “The juvenile court was under no obligation to revisit failed strategies before placing” T.J. in a more-restrictive placement. M.Q.M. v. State, 840 N.E.2d 441, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[17] Furthermore, in addition to the failed attempts to place T.J. in a less-restrictive placement, T.J. had also engaged in what appeared to be escalating aggressive and violent behavior while placed in the SYV and had displayed a hostile attitude towards his probation officer. Given the escalating and violent nature of T.J.’s behavior, we cannot say that the juvenile court's concern for T.J.’s “safety or the safety of the folks that he would be around if he was returned back to a household in which he originally offended” was unfounded. Tr. Vol. II p. 77. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing T.J. in the DOC. See J.B. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 714, 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing a juvenile in the DOC when the juvenile had had many chances to modify his behavior but has consistently rejected those opportunities).

[18] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Bradford, Judge.

Riley, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.