R.S., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Seventeen-year-old R.S. (“R.S.”) appeals the juvenile court's order that granted his wardship to the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) for placement in an appropriate juvenile facility. R.S. specifically argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted his wardship to the DOC. Finding no abuse of the juvenile court's discretion, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted R.S.’s wardship to the DOC.

Facts

[3] In January 2024, the State filed a petition alleging that R.S. was a delinquent child for committing Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm.¹ At a February 2024 hearing, R.S. admitted to the offense, and the trial court adjudicated him to be a delinquent child.

[4] Thereafter, the trial court asked the probation officer for her recommendation regarding R.S.’s disposition. The probation officer responded as follows:

Your Honor, after looking at the services and placement that [R.S. has] received in Juvenile Court - he's received services through Southwestern Behavioral Healthcare, prior secure detention. He's had residential placement at Transitions, which he escaped from, so he was discharged from there unsuccessfully. He's had residential placement at Hillcrest. He's been on electronic house arrest. He's had random drug screens. He's received individual therapy, group therapy, and family therapy. He's been on probation. And he does have a prior commitment to the Indiana Department of Corrections, which I believe he was discharged from there in August of 2023. And he continues to pose a risk to the community. So at this time I'm recommending he be committed to the Indiana Department of Corrections where they can address his criminogenic thinking, substance use and educational services. He's not been attending school since he was discharged from Department of Corrections.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 7-8). R.S. asked the juvenile court to place him on house arrest until his eighteenth birthday in August 2024.

[5] After hearing the probation officer's recommendation and R.S.’s request, the juvenile court stated as follows:

I'm sure, [R.S.], I've had this talk with you in the past and yet you still keep coming in front of the Court. ․ You had a gun in our community. That has to be answered. And given your history, given everything we've tried with you, the only thing I have left - we have exhausted all resources. We've had you in residential placements. We've had services into your home. We've had you placed locally. We've had you on probation. Nothing we've tried has worked. ․ I don't want kids to go [to the DOC]. But sometimes there's no choice. Because we've been left with no choice. [The] DOC is the absolutely last thing we do. And that's where we are. ․

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 10-12). Thereafter, the juvenile court granted wardship of R.S. to the DOC. A few days later, the juvenile court issued a written order that granted wardship of R.S. to the DOC for placement in an appropriate juvenile facility.

[6] R.S. now appeals.

Decision

[7] R.S. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted his wardship to the DOC. A juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. J.T. v. State, 111 N.E.3d 1019, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated to be a delinquent child will only be reversed if the juvenile court abuses its discretion. Id. The juvenile court's discretion in determining a disposition is subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court's action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, cert. denied.

[8] Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile court must consider when entering a dispositional decree in a juvenile matter:

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.

I.C. § 31-37-18-6.

[9] Although the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement, the statute allows for a more restrictive placement under certain circumstances. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. That is, the statute requires placement in the least restrictive setting only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” I.C. § 31-37-18-6. Thus the statute recognizes that, in certain situations, the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement because “commitment to a public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society.” M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459 (cleaned up).

[10]Here, our review of the evidence reveals that less restrictive efforts have failed to produce positive changes in R.S.’s behavior. Specifically, R.S. has received a variety of services, including individual therapy, family therapy, group therapy, and random drug screens. In addition, he was placed in two residential treatment programs and escaped from one of them. Further, R.S. has been placed in secure detention, on probation, and on electronic house arrest. R.S. also has a prior commitment to the DOC. In light of R.S.’s history and the failure of less restrictive efforts, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it granted R.S.’s wardship to the DOC. See, J.T., 111 N.E.3d at 1027.

[11]Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5(a). We note that the statute was amended, effective July 1, 2024. We apply the statute in effect at the time of the juvenile delinquency allegation.

Memorandum Decision by Judge Pyle

Judges May and Brown concur. May, J., and Brown, J., concur.