L.M.L.J., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] L.M.L.J. appeals the juvenile court's order granting wardship over him to the Indiana Department of Correction. L.M.L.J. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the Department of Correction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] When he was sixteen years old, L.M.L.J., who is originally from Guatemala, lived with his uncle in Dubois County. The uncle's five-year-old daughter, V1, also lived in the home. On two occasions between December 15, 2023, and March 15, 2024, L.M.L.J. anally penetrated V1. On March 18, V1 disclosed the abuse to her mother.

[3] The ensuing sequence of events culminated in the State alleging L.M.L.J. to be a delinquent child for having committed two acts of child molesting as Level 3 felonies if committed by an adult. Thereafter, L.M.L.J. admitted to the allegations in the delinquency petition. The juvenile court then ordered the preparation of a predispositional report. In later submitting that report to the court, the probation officer recommended as follows:

In consideration of the totality of circumstances in this matter, this Probation Officer believes that it will be in [L.M.L.J.’s] best interest for him to be placed at the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), as there are no other less-restrictive options available that will serve his unique needs while protecting both him and the community at this time.

[L.M.L.J.] has been staying at the Logansport Juvenile Correctional Facility since March 21, 2024, and if he is permitted to remain at that same location, he will already be acclimated to his surroundings, the staff, day-to-day activities, expectations, etc. He would be able to continue with the education he has already been receiving and will be evaluated/assessed for participation in an appropriate level of programming that will address his specific criminogenic needs.

It is important to view this potential placement at the IDOC as an opportunity for [L.M.L.J.] to learn and hopefully rehabilitate in a safe environment. The Division of Youth Services (DYS) oversees the Indiana Department of Correction juvenile care. Per the DYS website, one of the Guiding Principles of DYS is “Youth Development,” which is to “Promote positive lifestyle changes and law-abiding behaviors through youth participation in treatment programs, education, and job skill development.”

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 59.

[4] At the ensuing disposition hearing, the probation officer further explained her recommendation that L.M.L.J. be placed in the Department of Correction. In particular, the probation officer noted the seriousness of the offenses and the youth of the victim. The probation officer also noted that L.M.L.J. had taken responsibility for his actions and that there is reason to believe that L.M.L.J. himself may be the victim of human trafficking. As to that concern, the probation officer explained that L.M.L.J. has no legal guardian in the United States, he was not receiving an education and was instead working an average of forty-eight hours per week in a physically demanding environment, he has been attempting to pay off “thousands of dollars” of debt that “g[ot] him to this point in his ․ life,” and he “does not have a family in this area.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 19. The probation officer also acknowledged that L.M.L.J. had “expressed a desire to return home to Guatemala.” Id. at 20. The court agreed with the probation officer's recommendation and granted wardship over L.M.L.J. to the Department of Correction.

[5] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] On appeal, L.M.L.J. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him in the care of the Department of Correction. Dispositional decrees in juvenile delinquency cases are governed by Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (2023), which provides:

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.

[7] The choice of the specific disposition for a juvenile determined to be delinquent is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The juvenile court's discretion is subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least-harsh disposition. Id. Even if options less harsh than commitment to an institution are available to the juvenile court, there are still times when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and of society. D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In other words, the law requires only that the disposition selected be the least-restrictive disposition that is consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child. Id. Thus, the juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 28.

[8] We initially note that L.M.L.J.’s argument on appeal relies on the statutory mitigating circumstances applicable to adults in criminal cases. See Appellant's Br. at 8-11 (relying on I.C. § 35-38-1-7.1). But L.M.L.J. is not an adult and he has not been sentenced as one in this juvenile case. Accordingly, L.M.L.J.’s argument on appeal is not in accordance with Indiana law.

[9] Nonetheless, L.M.L.J. asserts that the following facts required the juvenile court to place him somewhere other than with the Department of Correction: he was cooperative with authorities, including admitting to the allegations in the delinquency petition; his father is an alcoholic; he has no juvenile or criminal history; he had a job and paid his bills; he believes he would respond well to a less-restrictive placement; and his placement with the Department of Correction would create a purported undue hardship on his family.

[10] But L.M.L.J.’s arguments simply ask this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Considering instead the evidence most favorable to the juvenile court's judgment, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over L.M.L.J. to the Department of Correction. L.M.L.J. has no family or guardian in Indiana that could care for him or provide a more family-like placement, and he has expressed a desire to return to Guatemala. He has not received education while in the United States, and the Department of Correction provides educational programming. Further, L.M.L.J. admitted to serious delinquent acts that, if he were an adult, would have resulted in a sentence between three and sixteen years for each act.

[11] Accordingly, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over L.M.L.J. to the Department of Correction. We therefore affirm the court's judgment.

[12] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.