H.B., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] H.B. appeals his commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a juvenile-delinquency adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] H.B. was born in December 2007. He was first referred to juvenile court when he was thirteen years old in October 2021, but no delinquency petition was filed. In June 2022, the State filed a petition alleging that H.B. was a delinquent child for committing what would be Level 3 felony armed robbery if committed by an adult. H.B. admitted to the lesser-included offense of Level 5 felony intimidation and was placed on sixty days of electronic home detention and nine months of supervised probation. The juvenile court also ordered H.B. to undergo a mental-health evaluation, comply with any recommended treatment, and work with caseworker Scott Wood at Lifeline Youth & Family Services.

[3] Four months later, in October 2022, H.B. threatened to shoot a student at his middle school and was expelled. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that H.B. committed what would be Level 6 felony intimidation if committed by an adult. H.B. admitted to the allegation and was placed on one year of supervised probation (with a thirty-day suspended commitment to electronic home detention) and again ordered to complete a mental-health evaluation and any recommended treatment and continue working with Wood.

[4] In August 2023, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that H.B. committed what would be Level 5 felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. H.B. admitted to the lesser-included offense of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and to Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The juvenile court imposed a sixty-day suspended commitment to the Delaware County Juvenile Detention Center, six months of supervised probation, and thirty hours of community service. The court also ordered a mental-health evaluation and treatment and that H.B. continue working with Wood (who had since become affiliated with Firefly Children & Family Alliance).

[5] On the second day of his freshman year of high school, H.B. was expelled for fighting with another student. Later, he switched to a virtual-education program but wasn't doing his work. In January 2024, H.B. enrolled in an alternative-education program at The Crossing, but he struggled with attendance, was disrespectful to teachers and staff, and didn't complete his schoolwork, so he was removed from the program.

[6] On March 30, H.B., then sixteen, was driving with a female passenger despite never having received a driver's license. Delaware County Sheriff's Deputy Steven Coffman saw H.B.’s car and noticed that H.B. and the passenger weren't wearing seatbelts. Deputy Coffman tried to pull the car over, but H.B. continued driving, even after Deputy Coffman turned on his emergency lights and siren. Deputy Coffman ordered H.B. to stop over his loudspeaker, and H.B. finally pulled over. H.B. exited the car and ran away, but Deputy Coffman caught up to him and handcuffed him. When Deputy Coffman searched the car, he found marijuana. Deputy Coffman took H.B. to his father's house and, after interviewing him, released him to his father's custody.

[7] One month later, on May 1, H.B. was again driving without a license when another deputy tried to pull him over for speeding. H.B. kept driving, and as the deputy chased him, H.B. made multiple turns without signaling, ran several stop signs, and eventually hit a parked car. H.B. then exited his car and ran away without stopping at the scene of the crash or leaving any information. The next day, officers in Hamilton County pulled a car over, and H.B. was in the back seat. Once H.B. got out of the car, he gave the officers a false name. The officers found firearms in the car, including a Glock handgun near where H.B. had been sitting.

[8] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging fifteen counts for H.B.’s acts on March 30, May 1, and May 2. H.B. was detained in the Delaware County Juvenile Detention Center. At the initial hearing, H.B. admitted to six of the counts: what would be, if committed by an adult, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident, Class B misdemeanor false informing, and Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. The State dismissed the remaining counts. Caseworker Wood attended the hearing and testified that H.B. had been in services through Firefly for just over a year, H.B. was doing well and did everything asked of him, and he'd be successfully discharging H.B. the next day. H.B. admitted that since being detained, he'd been placed on elevated levels of detention for arguing with other detainees. The juvenile court ordered H.B. to remain in detention until the dispositional hearing at the end of June.

[9] Probation Officer Christopher Doerner prepared a predispositional report. In Doerner's interview with H.B., H.B. “expressed little remorse” and “attempted to distance himself” from his delinquent behavior, saying that “[i]t didn't affect anyone” and he “was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 65. H.B.’s father told Doerner he was “tired of dealing with [H.B.’s] behavior” and didn't want H.B. back in the home. Id. The report also noted that while in the Delaware County Juvenile Detention Center, H.B. was placed on elevated levels of detention for having unapproved items in his room and threatening another detainee.

[10] H.B.’s father and aunt both attended the dispositional hearing. Doerner recommended that H.B. be committed to the DOC because less-restrictive alternatives have been unsuccessful—H.B. continues to commit new delinquent acts and “things have escalated.” Tr. p. 22. He explained that H.B. participated in services at both Centerstone and Meridian but didn't always attend his appointments. Doerner opined that a secure facility is most appropriate and the best way for H.B. to get the services he needs because H.B. “wasn't going to take anything else seriously.” Id. Doerner noted that he considered residential placement at Youth Opportunity Center, but it didn't have any openings. Doerner also felt that placing H.B. with his aunt, who lives in Westfield, wouldn't be appropriate because a portion of H.B.’s delinquent acts in this case occurred in Hamilton County, so Doerner was “sure [H.B.] knows people there as well.” Id. at 23. The juvenile court asked H.B.’s aunt if H.B. had spent time at her home, and she said no.

[11] At the end of the hearing, the court committed H.B. to the DOC, explaining:

[W]hile I consider residential treatment, for you, you have been so resistant to any opportunities that we have tried to provide to you. You haven't taken it seriously. ․ [Y]ou keep committing new delinquencies, and I keep seeing you back. I don't believe that you would engage in residential treatment. I- you have not shown me that that is an opportunity that would benefit you. And because of the seriousness of your adjudications, your prior history in the juvenile justice system, the escalation of the behavior that you've engaged in, the fact that your father is not willing to have you in the home, I am finding that all rehabilitative options within Delaware County have been exhausted ․

Id. at 34.

[12] H.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] H.B. contends the juvenile court should not have placed him in the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the juvenile court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:

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.

The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.

[14] H.B. contends the juvenile court should have ordered a less restrictive placement. But as Doerner and the court pointed out, less restrictive options have already been tried with no success. H.B. has been on supervised probation and electronic monitoring multiple times and has participated in services with Centerstone, Meridian, and Firefly. Despite these opportunities, H.B. continues to commit delinquent acts, and his behavior is escalating. This is H.B.’s fourth delinquency adjudication in two years, and each time he committed a new delinquent act, he was still on probation for the previous delinquency. Even as he awaited disposition in this case, he was placed on elevated levels of detention for having unapproved items in his room and threatening and arguing with other detainees. H.B. has also struggled in school settings; he was expelled from middle school for threatening to shoot another student, expelled on his second day of high school for fighting with another student, and removed from The Crossing because he was disrespectful to teachers and staff and didn't do his work. Yet, H.B. “consistently blames others and refuses to accept accountability for his choices and actions.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 86. Though H.B. hasn't participated in residential treatment, the juvenile court didn't believe he would engage in such treatment and found it “highly unlikely that [H.B.] will be successful in a less structured program” than the DOC. Id. at 65. Similarly, Doerner opined that DOC placement is most appropriate and the best way for H.B. to receive the services he needs because he felt H.B. “wasn't going to take anything else seriously.” And Doerner considered residential placement at Youth Opportunity Center, but there were no openings.

[15] H.B. argues that the court should've considered placing him with his aunt or grandmother, but his counsel didn't propose either of those placements at the dispositional hearing, and nothing suggests that placing H.B. with his aunt or grandmother was even an option. Although his aunt attended the dispositional hearing, she said H.B. had never stayed with her before. And when the trial court asked H.B.’s father if H.B. had stayed with his grandmother, his father said, “No, not really.” Tr. p. 29. Further, Doerner testified that placing H.B. with his aunt in Westfield wouldn't be appropriate because H.B. committed some of his delinquent acts in Hamilton County and “knows people there.”

[16] The juvenile court acted well within its discretion by placing H.B. in the DOC.

[17] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Senior Judge Crone concur. Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.