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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The St. Joseph Probate Court adjudicated J.M. a delinquent child and granted wardship of J.M. to the Department of Correction in case numbers 71J01-2402-JD-74 and 71J01-2407-JD-249. J.M. appeals and argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him in the Department of Correction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On February 25, 2024, a South Bend police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle. During the stop, seventeen-year-old J.M. exited the vehicle and fled. He ran into a nearby residence without permission of the homeowner. A child in the home saw J.M. run into a bedroom and hide a gun. Appellee's App. p. 3. A police officer later recovered the gun J.M. hid in the bedroom. Id.

[4] Subsequently, in case number 71J01-2402-JD-74, the State alleged that J.M. was a delinquent child for committing resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult (“Case No. 74”). J.M. admitted that he had committed the offense. Thereafter, the juvenile court adjudicated him a delinquent child. J.M.’s dispositional hearing was held on May 14, and the court ordered J.M. placed on “[s]trict and [i]ndefinite [p]robation.” Appellant's App. p. 72. The terms of J.M.’s probation included random home visits, obeying all school rules, and refraining from the use of any illegal substances or alcohol. J.M. was placed in his grandparents’ home in Missouri, and supervision of J.M. was ordered transferred to that state. Id. at 73.

[5] J.M.’s grandmother later kicked J.M. out of her home because he made threatening gestures toward her and stole her granddaughter's money. J.M. also resisted his grandmother's attempts to obtain therapy and psychiatric services for him. Law enforcement officers took J.M. to a shelter after his grandmother reported that J.M. was no longer welcome in her home. On July 9, J.M. left Missouri without permission and returned to St. Joseph County.

[6] On July 29, a South Bend police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by J.M. During the stop, J.M. ran from the officer. After the officer demanded that J.M. stop running several times, J.M. eventually complied, and the officer took him into custody.

[7] On August 6, in case number 71J01-2407-JD-249, the State alleged that J.M. had again committed resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult (“Case No. 249”). J.M. admitted that he had committed the offense at the initial hearing. The St. Joseph County Probation Department also filed a petition to modify the dispositional decree in Case No. 74 alleging that J.M. had violated his probation by committing resisting law enforcement on July 29, returning to Indiana without permission, and testing positive for marijuana.

[8] On September 10, the juvenile court held consolidated hearings in both cases, specifically, a review hearing in Case No. 74 and a dispositional hearing in Case No. 249. J.M.’s probation officer testified that, while J.M. was detained and awaiting the hearing, he engaged in disruptive and disrespectful behavior numerous times with facility staff. J.M. accumulated sixteen incident reports at the juvenile detention facility. Tr. p. 19.

[9] J.M.’s stepfather informed the court that he was willing to take custody of J.M.¹ J.M. had resided with his stepfather for approximately seven years before he was placed with his grandmother and relocated to Missouri. J.M.’s siblings also lived in stepfather's home. And J.M. took responsibility for his offenses and informed the court that he had earned good grades during his detention.

[10] The juvenile court issued a modification order in Case No. 74 and a dispositional order in Case No. 249. In both orders, the court directed that J.M. be placed in the Department of Correction. In the orders, the court observed that J.M. needs a highly structured environment with consistent supervision, and J.M.’s stepfather had not successfully provided J.M. with that environment in the past. Appellant's App. pp. 16, 57. The court also noted that J.M.’s behavior in juvenile detention “demonstrated the same contempt for authority that apparently led his placement with his grandmother to fail.” Id. at 17, 57. J.M. now appeals his placement.

Discussion and Decision

[11] J.M. argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted wardship of him to the Department of Correction in both cases. J.M. claims that his placement is punitive in nature rather than rehabilitative because his stepfather was willing to provide a structured placement for him.

[12] The “juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Thus, we will reverse the court's choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child only for an abuse of discretion. Id. The “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. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is “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.” Id.

[13] The choice of an appropriate juvenile disposition is governed by Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 (2024), which provides as follows:

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.

[14] The statute “states that placement in the least restrictive setting is required only ‘[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.’ ” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting 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.” J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see also G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024) (explaining that “commitment to the DOC should be treated as a last resort” but “that option may be appropriate when consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child”) (citations and quotations omitted).

[15] For his own safety and the community's safety, J.M. needs a structured environment that is best provided by the Department of Correction. J.M. continued to engage in criminal offenses and other misconduct after he was adjudicated a delinquent child in March 2024. While J.M. was placed with his grandmother after the March 2024 delinquency adjudication, he refused to cooperate with his grandmother's efforts to obtain therapeutic services for him. After his unauthorized return to Indiana, J.M. committed resisting law enforcement for a second time. During J.M.’s detention before his dispositional hearing, J.M. amassed sixteen incident reports for disrespect, failure to follow instruction, threatening staff members, and disobedience. Tr. pp. 19-20. The juvenile court considered stepfather's request to take custody of J.M. but noted that J.M. committed the resisting offenses while previously residing with his stepfather. Appellant's App. pp. 16, 57. Finally, the juvenile court properly considered J.M.’s age, i.e., that he was nearly eighteen years old, and, therefore, there were no less restrictive alternatives available to him. Accordingly, the Department of Correction was the least restrictive disposition available given J.M.’s needs. See, e.g., M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459 (placement at Department of Correction was not an abuse of discretion where the juvenile continued to commit delinquent acts and less restrictive methods had failed).

[16] The juvenile court concluded that J.M.’s placement in the Department of Correction was in his best interests and consistent with the safety of the community. J.M.’s arguments to the contrary are merely requests to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. For all of these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's dispositional orders granting wardship of J.M. to the Department of Correction.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   J.M.’s biological parents are deceased.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Foley and Felix concur. Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.