D.B., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] While he was on probation and detained for a previous juvenile adjudication, D.B., a minor, was alleged to be a delinquent for committing the offense of battery against another detainee while awaiting placement at an inpatient treatment facility. D.B. admitted to the allegation, and the juvenile court ordered D.B. to be placed with the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). D.B. appeals and presents a single issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering DOC placement.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2023, D.B. was adjudicated delinquent for resisting law enforcement and refusal to identify, and he was ordered to undergo drug testing as part of his probation due to his history of substance abuse, including a 2022 delinquency adjudication for attempted trafficking with an inmate during a prior detention. During late 2023 and early 2024, D.B. tested positive for marijuana on four occasions and tested positive for fentanyl once.

[4] In April 2024, D.B. was detained awaiting placement at an inpatient substance abuse program. On April 9, D.B. struck another resident of the detention center. After this incident, D.B. continued to exhibit disruptive and aggressive behavior. While detained, D.B. (1) stated that if he was sent to DOC then “someone is definitely getting shanked,” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 8; (2) disrespected staff, including an incident where he told a staff member to “get the f[*]ck out of his face,” id. at 9; (3) refused to leave his room when asked by staff; (4) and threatened a staff member, saying, “[Y]ou are a small person for someone who is going to die,” id. at 13. The State filed a petition alleging that on April 9, D.B. committed battery as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

[5] The juvenile court held an initial hearing where D.B. admitted to the allegation of battery. The initial hearing was converted to a dispositional hearing and the probation department recommended DOC placement for D.B. due to his history of substance abuse and behavior while in detention. Counsel for D.B. advised the court that the D.B. was denying several of the disruptive and aggressive incidents while in detention. He concluded by requesting a placement similar to home detention instead of placement at the DOC. D.B. then personally requested another opportunity to show the court that he “can stay sober ․ finish high school [and] be something in life.” Tr. Vol. II at 16. D.B. did not take this time to deny any of the disruptive and aggressive allegations while in detention. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court took the matter under advisement. The juvenile court entered a dispositional order the following day. In the order, the juvenile court noted that D.B.’s long history of substance abuse warranted out-of-home placement and that D.B.’s behavior while in detention “has proved extraordinarily problematic,” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 40; the juvenile court ordered D.B. to be placed at the DOC. D.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Ordering D.B. to DOC Placement

[6] D.B. argues that the juvenile court erred by ordering DOC placement. “Juvenile courts enjoy wide latitude and significant flexibility in their dealings with juveniles.” B.K. v. State, 235 N.E.3d 142, 145 (Ind. 2024) (citing In re M.T., 928 N.E.2d 266, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). We review the juvenile court's disposition for abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024) (citing K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)). “A court abuses its discretion by misinterpreting the law or ‘if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.’ ” Id. (quoting T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023)). “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)), trans. not sought.

[7] “The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the juvenile court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.” A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). When considering an appropriate disposition, if it can be consistent with safety of the community and the best interest of the child, juvenile courts must consider (1) the least restrictive setting that is close the parents’ home, (2) attempting to minimally interfere with family autonomy, (3) attempting to not disrupt family life, (4) imposing the least restraint on the child, and (5) providing reasonable opportunities for participation of the child's family. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. D.B. argues that the evidence failed to show that DOC placement was in his best interest.

[8] Initially, we note that “commitment to the DOC ‘should be treated as a last resort,’ ” G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 190 (quoting C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)), but “that option may be appropriate when ‘consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child,’ ” id. (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). First, D.B. claims that, due to the drastic measure of DOC placement, he deserved an opportunity to present evidence at the disposition hearing. At the disposition hearing, D.B.’s counsel presented argument that D.B. did not commit the alleged offenses, but otherwise he provided no evidence to challenge the allegations. The disposition report provides in relevant part:

While the Court notes that, at the hearing this Order addresses, the Respondent's counsel maintained that he denied some of the specific allegations regarding his behavior, the Court cannot find counsel's factual statements constitute evidence; indeed, the Respondent himself, though he offered testimony, did not attempt to specifically rebut certain allegations.

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 40 (emphasis added). Although he now claims otherwise, D.B. had the chance to rebut the allegations against him and failed to do so. Thus, we are unpersuaded by D.B.’s argument that he deserves another chance to provide evidence.

[9] Second, D.B. claims that the trial court should have given more weight to his traumatic childhood and attempts to address his substance abuse in making its disposition. These are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do, see A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). D.B. exhibited a continued inability to respond to less restrictive means of placement and failed to address his behavior and substance use. We conclude that the evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that DOC placement was in D.B.’s best interest, so the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering D.B. to be placed with DOC.

[10] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.