C.H., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] C.H. appeals the juvenile court's modification of his dispositional order and his commitment to the Department of Correction (“DOC”) as a result of his probation violations. Given C.H.’s repeated probation violations, we cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing C.H. to the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] C.H. raises one issue, which we restate as whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place him under the wardship of the DOC.

Facts

[3] In November 2022, C.H., who was born in 2007, was “given a diversion” for an act that would be domestic battery if committed by an adult, and C.H. “did not successfully complete” the diversion. Tr. Vol. II pp. 8-9. On June 23, 2023, C.H. was found with marijuana on a school field trip, and the State alleged that C.H. committed an act that would be possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. C.H. entered an admission, the juvenile court adjudicated him to be delinquent, and the juvenile court placed C.H. on probation for one year.

[4] C.H.’s mother arranged for C.H. to live with her father in Texas, which the juvenile court approved. C.H., however, soon misbehaved in Texas, and his mother brought him back to Indiana. In October 2023, the State alleged that C.H. violated the terms of his probation by leaving his home without permission. C.H. admitted committing the violation. The juvenile court's disposition included placing C.H. back on probation for up to one year and ordering C.H. to remain on home detention for up to ninety days, participate in Benchmark Family Preservation, obtain a substance abuse assessment and complete any recommended treatment, submit to drug screens, perform community service, and enroll in school and remain in good standing.

[5] At a review hearing in February 2024, the probation department reported that C.H. was not completing his community service, failed to properly complete an essay required by his probation officer, failed to submit home detention schedules to his probation officer, failed to keep his ankle monitor charged, tampered with his ankle monitor, failed to complete schooling as directed, failed to follow his mother's instructions, and had a “very nonchalant attitude.” Id. at 34. The juvenile court continued C.H.’s home detention and warned C.H. that he would be committed to the DOC if he continued to violate his probation.

[6] In September 2024, the State alleged that C.H. violated the terms of his probation again by: (1) testing positive for alcohol on April 9, 2024; (2) testing positive for marijuana on August 13, 2024; (3) testing positive for alcohol and marijuana on August 19, 2024; (4) failing to comply with services offered by Benchmark Family Preservation; (5) missing two and one-half days of school and being tardy five times; (6) failing to report his location and the people with whom he associated to his mother; and (7) failing to pay probation fees. C.H. admitted using marijuana, missing school, being tardy for school, failing to appear for detention, and owing probation fees. C.H.’s mother reported that she could not control him, and Benchmark Services reported that C.H. was uncooperative with services.

[7] At the dispositional hearing, the probation department recommended commitment to the DOC, and the State noted that a search warrant was executed at C.H.’s residence the previous day due to an ongoing investigation. The juvenile court stated that it would not consider the search warrant in making its decision but also stated that “it's clear that more structure, more confinement is necessary.” Id. at 62. The juvenile court awarded wardship of C.H. to the DOC. C.H. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] C.H. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place him under the wardship of the DOC based on his probation violations. “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). We review a juvenile court's disposition of a delinquent child for an abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). The juvenile court abuses its discretion if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or by misinterpreting the law. Id. “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[9] Juvenile courts have “a myriad of dispositional alternatives to fit the unique and varying circumstances of each child's problems.” R.J.G. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. 2009). The dispositional decree should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. Id. Regarding the selection of an appropriate disposition, Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 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.

[10] After entering a dispositional order, a juvenile court may amend the order under certain circumstances. Ind. Code § 31-37-22-1. The probation officer, among others, may request modification of a juvenile's disposition based on a violation of the juvenile's probation. See K.A. v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1272, 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (noting that Indiana Code Section 31-37-22-1”provides that a probation officer, among others, may request modification of a juvenile's disposition”), trans. denied.

[11] C.H. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by selecting the DOC placement instead of a less restrictive placement at a residential treatment facility pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6(1)(A). This Court has explained:

Without question, the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement in most situations; however, the statute contains language that reveals that a more restrictive placement might be appropriate under certain circumstances. 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.

J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal citations omitted).

[12] C.H. argues that the trial court improperly relied upon the investigation related to the search warrant to commit C.H. to the DOC. According to C.H., the probation department initially recommended placement in a residential treatment facility. C.H. alleges that, when the investigation related to the search warrant commenced, the probation department changed its recommendation to placement in the DOC. C.H. contends that the juvenile court's disposition was based upon the probation department's recommendation, and thus, the juvenile court's decision was improper. The juvenile court, however, specifically stated that it was not considering the investigation related to the search warrant in making its decision.

[13] Despite multiple services and opportunities offered to C.H., C.H.’s behaviors became increasingly defiant. Even though the juvenile court warned C.H. repeatedly that his behavior could lead to a commitment to the DOC, C.H. abused marijuana, tampered with his ankle monitor, failed to attend school as required, and disobeyed his mother. The juvenile court warned C.H. that it was “running out of options real quick.” Tr. Vol. II p. 53. Ultimately, the juvenile court believed that C.H.’s best interest would be better served by placement in the DOC rather than a residential treatment facility. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the juvenile court's decision was an abuse of discretion.

Conclusion

[14] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place C.H. under the wardship of the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.