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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.B. appeals the Vanderburgh Superior Court's order granting wardship over him to the Indiana Department of Correction. A.B. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the Department of Correction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Fourteen-year-old A.B. has a history of violent acts and demeanor. Prior to being detained, A.B. was in eighth grade. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 20. While in school, A.B. failed his classes and showed extreme behavioral issues, including “throwing trays at staff, turning over tables and chairs, threatening staff, [being] physically aggressive, talking about bombs under the school, being disruptive in class, throwing food at a female student's face, and failing to follow directions.” Id. at 43. A.B. has also “threatened to rape female peers and castrate male peers on social media.” Id. at 53.

[4] A.B.’s first referral to juvenile court was in 2023 for two counts of battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of criminal mischief. Id. at 37. After adjudicating A.B. to be a delinquent on those allegations, the court placed A.B. on probation. Id.

[5] While on probation, on February 1, 2024, A.B. completed a psychological evaluation at Logansport Juvenile Correctional Facility. Id. at 37. A.B.’s psychological evaluation diagnosed him with a conduct disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Id. at 21. During the evaluation, A.B. reported suicidal and homicidal thoughts but told the evaluator that he did not believe that he needed to work on his mental health and anger, stating that “it was the victims’ faults as they made him mad.” Id. at 45. A.B. also said he had no remorse for his actions. Id. The Department of Correction case manager recommended that A.B. be placed in a structured psychiatric residential locked facility. Id.

[6] A.B.’s probation officer contacted fifteen residential facilities attempting to find a placement, but “no facility found him appropriate for their program due to his mental health needs combined with his defiance and aggression.” Id. at 45. On April 30, A.B.’s probation officer ordered him to comply with family preservation services and mental health services. Id. While still on probation with family preservation services, in July, A.B. and his family moved to Evansville. Id. at 42.

[7] By August, A.B. was temporarily living at Deaconess Crosspointe in Evansville. Id. at 13. On August 25, during his residency at Deaconess, A.B. became violent and attacked four staff members, specifically:

Victim 1 was kicked in the head and spit [at] in the face. [A.B.] also attempted to bite her arm and pinched her.

Victim 2 was spit [at] in the hair by [A.B.]. He also pulled her hair and twisted her arm. [A.B.] attempted to bite her as well.

Victim 3 was bitten on the left forearm. The bite broke the skin, causing bleeding. He also sustained bruising to his right elbow.

Victim 4 was spit on by [A.B.] (hit her hair) and had her arm twisted. [A.B.] also attempted to bite her.

Id. Deaconess staff called the police after they were finally able to restrain and sedate A.B. during the incident. Id. After arriving, the police transferred A.B. to the Youth Care Center. Id.

[8] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that A.B. was a delinquent child for committing battery resulting in bodily injury, as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult; three counts of battery, as Class B misdemeanors if committed by an adult; and two counts of battery by bodily waste, as Class B misdemeanors if committed by an adult. Id. at 8-9. The juvenile court approved the petition. Id. at 32. A.B. admitted to those allegations, and the court accepted the factual basis for his admission. Id. at 4.

[9] A.B.’s behavior did not improve during his placement at the Youth Care Center awaiting disposition. A.B. cursed at a staff member, saying “nobody gives a f**k about you” and “f**k what you got to say.” Id. at 49. A.B. ignored staff directives to stop causing distractions during educational instruction, took playing cards from other residents, refused to return them after staff ordered him to do so, and refused to go to his room. Id. A staff member attempted to escort A.B. to his room, and A.B. attacked the staff member, striking him in the face, pulling his hair, and kicking him. Id. It took four staff members to finally return A.B. to his room, where he was placed on lockdown. Id.

[10] At a dispositional hearing, a Department of Child Services case manager explained to the juvenile court that DCS had done a qualified residential treatment assessment and had found that A.B. was not eligible for placement in a residential facility because his “aggression [was] so severely mismanaged or unmanaged.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 14. The case manager deferred to probation's recommendation that A.B. be placed in the Department of Correction and recommended that A.B. be placed in the State Hospital once he could “actually manage” his aggression after treatment in the Department of Correction. Id. The juvenile court noted that “no one[ was] willing to work with” A.B. and took the disposition under advisement. Id. at 15-16.

[11] The juvenile court found that A.B. had exhausted all rehabilitative options and ordered that wardship of A.B. be awarded to the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 57.

Discussion and Decision

[12] On appeal, A.B. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded wardship over him to the Department of Correction. 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 provides “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).

[15] The juvenile court awarded wardship of A.B. to the Department of Correction after concluding that A.B. had exhausted his other rehabilitation options. A.B. has continuously displayed behavior that endangers himself and those around him. To reiterate, A.B. made threats to his peers and staff while in school, was uncooperative and initiated a physical altercation with the Deaconess staff, was aggressive towards staff and other residents at the Youth Care Center, and A.B. was displaying all of this behavior while on probation for two counts of battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of criminal mischief.

[16] The juvenile court has placed A.B. on formal probation before. Despite this less restrictive placement, A.B. continued to commit delinquent acts and showed no remorse. A.B. has not responded to prior, less restrictive alternative placements that have been provided for him, and the juvenile court considered those prior failures when it determined what placement here would be the safest for the community and in A.B.’s best interest.

[17] A.B. insinuates that if his severe mental health needs were treated, residential placement would be more appropriate than being a ward of the Department of Correction. Appellant's Br. at 10. A.B. also argues he needs “ ‘care, protection, treatment and rehabilitation,’ not incarceration.” Id. (quoting E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 686 (Ind. App. 2002)).

[18] A.B.’s behavior and statements during the psychological evaluation demonstrate that he is unwilling to embrace mental health treatment in a less restrictive setting. A.B. has not taken advantage of lesser placements, has not sought to treat his mental health issues, and has continued to engage in delinquent acts. The juvenile court concluded that A.B. exhausted all his other rehabilitation options, making wardship over A.B. by the Department of Correction appropriate and determined that placement in the Department of Correction would best serve A.B.’s best interests. We will not second guess that decision on appeal. As our Court has previously observed, placement with the Department of Correction is not a penalty; a juvenile's placement in the Department of Correction may provide a secure environment that can better serve the overall purpose of rehabilitating a juvenile. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 461.

[19] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered A.B. to be a ward of the Department of Correction.

Conclusion

[20] We affirm the juvenile court's order granting wardship of A.B. to the Department of Correction.

[21] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

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