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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Within a three-to-four-month span, thirteen-year-old G.H. committed a multitude of delinquent acts and status offenses, he violated a variety of placement rules, and he disobeyed court orders and probation rules. Based on his conduct and his adjudications for battery, escape, criminal confinement, resisting law enforcement and criminal mischief, the trial court committed G.H. to the Indiana Department of Corrections Division of Youth Services (“DOC”). G.H. appeals claiming the trial court failed to consider the availability of less restrictive placements. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] While living with his father (“Father”) and stepmother (“Stepmother”), thirteen-year-old G.H. left home without permission, was arrested, and placed in the Shelter Care Unit of the Kinsey Youth Center (“Youth Center”) on March 7, 2024. When the State declined to file a juvenile delinquency action, G.H. was released to Father's care on March 11, 2024. Two weeks later, G.H. left home again without permission after getting into an argument with Stepmother. Once caught, he was returned to the Youth Center at which time he threatened to run away again if he was returned home.

[3] Just two days after returning to the Youth Center, G.H. punched a fellow resident “approximately twelve times.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 9. On April 2, 2024, while on a pass from the Youth Center to attend school, G.H. ran away from school. For the March 27th incident at the Youth Center, G.H. was adjudicated delinquent for battery,¹ a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. He was placed on formal probation, which included thirty days of electronic in-home detention at Father's home. On May 1, 2024, two days after beginning home detention, G.H. removed his electronic monitor and ran away from Father's home. On May 10, 2024, G.H. was adjudicated delinquent for escape, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. He was returned to the Youth Center one week later.

[4] G.H. violated probation again on May 30, 2024, when he snuck into a female resident's room at the Youth Center, barricaded the door with the resident inside, and refused to exit until sheriff's deputies arrived and threatened to use pepper spray. Once he emerged from the barricaded room, G.H. attempted to flee from the deputies. He was adjudicated delinquent on June 26, 2024, for confinement, a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

[5] In addition to his legal issues, G.H.’s behavior was “horrible.” Id. at 138. While at the Youth Center, staff noted he was “uncooperative and disrespectful” and he “yelled and cursed at staff.” Id. at 42. He physically assaulted staff and “threatened staff (to slap them and beat their ass).” Id. at 106. His other transgressions at the Youth Center included several incidents of physically assaulting residents, damaging the ceiling in his room, calling one staff member a “fat bitch,” telling another staff member that “his fat ass needs to go back to helping depressed kids,” and he was overheard “making comments about raping other people.” Id. at 138, 210. On July 11, 2024, four days before the disposition hearing, G.H. was “intimidating and threatening staff and residents,” and he “hit[ ] another resident in the head.” Id. at 210.

[6] Throughout his time at the Youth Center, G.H. often remarked that he refused to return to Father's care. He told staff that he would “rather go to foster care, a residential facility or even be committed to the DOC than return to his home.” Id. at 138. G.H. expressed “homicidal ideation toward his family and [drew] pictures depicting their death,” and he told a counselor that he attempted to hang himself. Id. at 142. G.H. admitted to using marijuana regularly and said there was a “10/10” chance he would relapse once released. Id. at 140. A DOC evaluation completed on July 1, 2024 recommended “[p]lacement in a locked residential treatment setting.” Id. at 143.

[7] At the July 15, 2024 disposition hearing, Father told the trial court he wants G.H. to get help but “[w]e can't give him the help that he needs.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 9. Father agreed with probation's recommendation to commit G.H. to the DOC. The trial court expressed its disappointment in G.H.’s lack of progress, especially given G.H.’s threats and intimidation to Youth Center staff only four days earlier. G.H.’s numerous probation violations, along with the trial court's frustration that “all of the possible treatments and services that we could provide have been exhausted,” led the trial court to commit G.H. to the DOC. Id. at 11.

Discussion and Decision

[8] When entering a dispositional decree, a trial court has discretion in its disposition of a juvenile delinquent, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006); see also Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). This disposition may include awarding wardship to “the department of correction for housing in a correctional facility for children.” Ind. Code § 31-37-19-6(b)(2)(A)(i). We do not reverse a juvenile disposition absent a showing of an abuse of this discretion. K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 544. A court abuses its discretion “if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.” G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200.

[9] G.H. refers us to the enumerated factors in Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 that a trial court is to consider when determining a juvenile delinquency disposition:

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 chil and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and

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

[10] Commitment to the DOC “should be treated as a last resort.” C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). But in some cases, this restrictive setting is also the most appropriate. Id.; see also M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing juvenile to the DOC, where juvenile continued to use marijuana, committed additional offenses, and was suspended from school, even after his involvement with the juvenile justice system), trans. denied, cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 632 (2020).

[11] G.H. claims the trial court abused its discretion by committing him to the DOC when less restrictive placements were available. The trial court was well within its discretion to conclude G.H.’s suggested placements were not the “most appropriate setting available.” See I.C. § 31-37-18-6(1)(a). Previous placements with Father failed, even while G.H. was on home detention, and his grandmother was unwilling to accept custody of G.H.² Two days after being placed on home detention with Father, G.H. cut his electronic monitor with a knife and left home. After this, G.H. continued to be a danger to himself and to the community. Since his delinquency adjudication, G.H. has been involved in at least four assaults or fights and he barricaded himself inside a female resident's room, trapping her inside. He repeatedly violated Youth Center rules and on several occasions, he threatened to run away if he was returned to Father's care. To put it in the trial court's own words, “[T]he only thing that's been consistent is [G.H.’s] inability to follow the rules.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 10.

[12] G.H.’s spiraling and deteriorating behavior left the trial court with few options. Placement outside of the DOC would not have provided G.H. with the structure he required and would not have appropriately taken the safety of the community into consideration. In less restrictive placements, G.H. was undeterred. He attacked and threatened other residents and staff, damaged property, trapped another resident in a room against her will, removed an electronic monitor, threatened suicide, and expressed “homicidal ideation toward his family.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 142. Rather than curbing his negative behavior and delinquency, G.H. squandered the leniency he was shown by the juvenile court and demonstrated that further restrictions were necessary.

[13] We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by granting wardship of G.H. to the DOC. See M.M. v. State, 189 N.E.3d 1163, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting wardship to the DOC when “numerous and intensive efforts and lesser restrictive placements” failed). Given G.H.’s dangerous conduct, it was necessary for the court to intervene and commit him to the DOC.

Conclusion

[14] The court did not abuse its discretion when it placed G.H. in the DOC since G.H. had many opportunities to improve his behavior in less restrictive placements but failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Probable cause was not found for the Failure to Return to Lawful Detention charge and the truancy charge was dismissed.

2.   G.H.’s grandmother is “elderly and suffers from cancer.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 135. She also told a trial court employee that she “would not be willing to take custody of [G.H.] ․.” Id. at 211.

DeBoer, Judge.

Judges May and Tavitas concur. May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.