B.B., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] B.B. (“B.B.”) appeals the juvenile court's order that granted his wardship to the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). B.B. 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 B.B.’s wardship to the DOC.

Facts

[3] B.B. was born in December 2011. By the time he was four years old, he had been expelled from eight daycare centers because of his aggressive behavior, including biting, kicking, and hitting staff members. Concerned about B.B.’s behavior, B.B.’s mother (“Mother”) took him to counseling appointments at Meridian Health Services (“Meridian”).

[4] In 2019, when B.B. was seven years old, he was expelled from school after he attacked a teacher and threw a chair. B.B. was subsequently admitted to Harsha Behavioral Center (“Harsha”) for increased aggression, hallucinations, and suicidal ideations. After he had been discharged from Harsha, B.B. returned to counseling at Meridian.

[5] Two years later, in 2021, when B.B. was nine years old, he was admitted to Bloomington Meadows Hospital (“Meadows Hospital”) for suicidal and homicidal ideations. Following his discharge from Meadows Hospital, B.B. participated in wraparound services through Meridian, and his behavior appeared to stabilize.

[6] However, in October 2021, B.B. attacked Mother several times, including an incident during which he stabbed Mother in the head with a fork. B.B. was subsequently admitted to Ball Memorial Hospital (“Ball Memorial”). Following his release from Ball Memorial, B.B. hit Mother in the head with a keyboard and was re-admitted to Ball Memorial. In December 2021, B.B. was admitted to Michiana Behavioral Health (“Michiana”) after he had attacked his grandmother. Throughout 2021, medical professionals attempted to regulate B.B.’s behavior with different medications.

[7] In 2022, when B.B. was ten years old, B.B.’s behavior became increasingly violent. In January 2022, B.B. attempted to stab Mother with a knife after she had found him looking in a closet for her wallet. In addition, B.B. kicked and hit the police officer who had been dispatched to Mother's home. A few days later, B.B. threatened to kill Mother and himself with a knife. B.B. was again admitted to Meadows Hospital, where he had to be restrained because he had hit, kicked, and headbutted staff members. Shortly after he had been discharged from Meadows Hospital, B.B. stabbed and hit Mother multiple times with a knife.

[8] Thereafter, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) filed a petition alleging that B.B. was a child in need of services (“CHINS”). Mother admitted that B.B. was a CHINS. After the juvenile court had adjudicated B.B. to be a CHINS, B.B. participated in an evaluation at Damar Services (“Damar”). While at Damar, B.B. attempted to stab a staff member with a toothbrush and attacked other children. The Damar evaluation recommended that B.B. participate in outpatient services. However, Mother was unwilling to take B.B. back into her home because of safety concerns.

[9] DCS had difficulty securing a placement for B.B. because of his young age and his homicidal ideations. Specifically, no foster families were willing to take him. In addition, DCS applied to fifteen residential treatment programs and only one, Crossroads Residential Treatment Program (“Crossroads”), was willing to accept him. In June 2022, the juvenile court approved B.B.’s placement at Crossroads after finding that it was the least restrictive placement for B.B. and the most appropriate placement to meet his needs.

[10] During his eighteen-month stay at Crossroads, B.B.’s behavior fluctuated between compliant and aggressive. For example, B.B. got into a physical altercation with another child and threatened to kill that child. B.B. also destroyed a computer lab and threatened to “tear the whole place apart.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 56). In addition, B.B. attempted to commit suicide multiple times by tying sheets around his neck.

[11] In December 2023, B.B. began a trial home visit at Mother's home. Three months later, in March 2024, the events leading to B.B.’s juvenile delinquency adjudication in this case ensued. Specifically, twelve-year-old B.B. became angry after Mother had taken away his cell phone. B.B. went into the kitchen, grabbed several knives, held one to Mother's throat, and threatened to kill her if she did not return his cell phone. Mother ran out of the house and screamed for help. Mother's neighbor (“Mother's neighbor”) responded to Mother's screams, and B.B. threatened to kill both Mother and Mother's neighbor. B.B. also threatened to kill his four-year-old sister, who was in Mother's home at the time. After being stabbed multiple times, Mother's neighbor was able to subdue B.B. and hold him on the ground until the police arrived. B.B. attempted to grab one of the officer's guns and threatened to “shoot [the officer's] ass.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 91). B.B. also kicked and bit the officer. In addition, while sitting in the officer's vehicle, B.B. wrapped the seatbelt around his neck.

[12] In March 2024, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that B.B. was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute: (1) Level 1 felony attempted murder of Mother; (2) Level 1 felony attempted murder of Mother's neighbor; (3) Level 5 felony intimidation of Mother; (4) Level 5 felony intimidation of Mother's neighbor; (5) Level 5 felony battery of Mother's neighbor; (6) Level 6 felony intimidation of a law enforcement officer; (7) Level 6 felony battery of a public safety officer; (8) and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[13] In April 2024, the State and B.B. reached an agreement. B.B. admitted that he had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute: (1) Level 1 felony attempted murder of Mother's neighbor; (2) Level 5 felony intimidation of Mother; and (3) Level 6 felony intimidation of a law enforcement officer. In exchange for B.B.’s admissions, the State dismissed the remaining allegations.

[14] The juvenile court adjudicated B.B. to be a delinquent child and ordered B.B. to participate in an evaluation at the DOC Division of Youth Services. The evaluator diagnosed B.B. with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, and bipolar disorder. In addition, the evaluator recommended that B.B. be placed in a structured, secure psychiatric residential treatment facility.

[15] At B.B.’s June 2024 dispositional hearing, B.B.’s probation officer testified that she had contacted multiple residential treatment facilities and hospitals regarding B.B.’s placement. However, all of the facilities that had responded had declined to accept B.B. Additional testimony revealed that B.B.’s juvenile delinquency adjudication for committing what would be Level 1 felony attempted murder if committed by an adult prohibited his placement in most secure facilities because of the facilities’ insurance requirements and concern about the safety of the other children in the facilities. According to the probation officer, she was still waiting to hear from two facilities. The juvenile court continued the dispositional hearing because it wanted to wait for the responses from the remaining two facilities before determining B.B.’s disposition.

[16] At the rescheduled dispositional hearing, the juvenile court learned that the two remaining facilities had declined to accept B.B. B.B.’s probation officer recommended that B.B. be placed in the DOC, where he would be able to receive treatment. In addition, a DCS supervisor, who had also been looking for a placement for B.B. in the CHINS case, testified that DCS had considered out-of-state facilities. However, according to the DCS supervisor, even if an out-of-state facility would accept B.B., the waiting list for out-of-state facilities was seven months.

[17] After the juvenile court had asked B.B.’s counsel for her recommendation, the following colloquy ensued:

[B.B.’s COUNSEL]: First of all, I'm not aiming this at anyone here, but I find it absolutely appalling that we have no place in this State that will take children who have mental problems, and other types of problems, and they are aggressive. I think that's ridiculous, and ․ I don't think it's good for him to go to the D.O.C. at twelve years old. I just think it's appalling that we have no place else to send him. I mean it's not your fault, it's not my fault, it's not anybody's here fault. And I just think that's absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. And I really don't know what else to do with [B.B.]. ․

[JUVENILE] COURT: I don't disagree with you, Ms. Quirk. It's been an ongoing frustration for this Court to locate appropriate residential treatment programs that will accept youth.

[B.B.’s DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I mean ․ that's like ․ a lot of the problem here in Juvenile Court, is aggression. And if there's no place to treat juveniles, then what's the point. Why [do] we even ․ have a juvenile system, in order to rehabilitate these kids? I mean, it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 162-63).

[18] Thereafter, the juvenile court stated as follows:

[B.B.], there's not a residential treatment option. And I wish there were a residential treatment option that could meet your needs today, but there isn't. ․ I need to make sure that you get ․ psychiatric treatment, and treatment for your mental health, and for that bipolar disorder that you were diagnosed with from that diagnostic evaluation at D.O.C․ At this time, the Court finds that all rehabilitative remedies have been exhausted in Delaware County, and I am gonna (*sic) commit [B.B.] to the Indiana Department of Correction, Division of Youth Services. I want [B.B.] and his mom to understand that the Department of Correction offers some wonderful programs. It's not just about a secure environment. It's about giving you the best opportunity for mental health treatment, and for behavioral modification, for counseling, for programming, for you to learn better coping skills, for you to learn how to make choices, and how to take care of your mental health. And I know that that's what your mom wants to see for you, and that's what I want to see for you. And so, this is the only option available to the Court under the circumstances as we sit here today. But just because it's the option available to the Court, and the option that I'm ordering for you, I do want you to know that I believe in the programming at D.O.C., and I believe in the people that work there. And I do believe that you're going to get the best available help there, even in that environment.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 164-66).

[19] That same day, the juvenile court issued a written order that granted wardship of B.B. to the DOC for placement in an appropriate juvenile facility. The juvenile court's order further provides as follows:

26. Placement in the Indiana Department of Correction – Division of Youth Services is appropriate due to the level and seriousness of the adjudicated offense of attempted murder and [B.B.]’s need for structure, stability and treatment. While it is not ideal to commit any child to IDOC-DYS at the age of twelve, [B.B.] is very much in need of the treatment that he will receive there. [B.B.]’s safety, as well as the safety of his mother and the community, will be maintained while he receives treatment. There are no less restrictive alternatives available for [B.B.] at this time.

(App. Vol. 2 at 166).

[20] B.B. now appeals.

Decision

[21] B.B. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted his wardship to the DOC. We disagree.

[22] 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.

[23] 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.

[24] 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).

[25] Here, B.B. specifically argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted his wardship to the DOC because “[t]he most appropriate placement for [him] is a residential or hospital setting.” (B.B.’s Br. 18). However, as B.B.’s counsel acknowledged at the dispositional hearing, all of the residential treatment facilities and hospitals that B.B.’s probation officer contacted declined to accept B.B.

[26] We further note that our review of the evidence reveals that less restrictive efforts have failed to produce positive changes in B.B.’s behavior. Specifically, twelve-year-old B.B. has a nine-year history of aggressive behavior. Over the years, he has participated in out-patient services at Meridian and in-patient services at Harsha, Meadows Hospital, Ball Memorial, and Michiana. B.B. also participated in an eighteen-month program at Crossroads. It was during a trial home visit from Crossroads that B.B. committed the acts that led to his juvenile delinquency adjudication in this case. In light of B.B.’s history and the failure of less restrictive efforts, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it granted B.B.’s wardship to the DOC. See, J.T., 111 N.E.3d at 1027.

[27] Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Felix concur. Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.