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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.T.M. appeals the modification of his placement to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). The trial court adjudicated J.T.M. a delinquent child first for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement ¹ and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct ² and then for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.³ When placements on probation, in home detention, at the juvenile justice center, and in a residential treatment facility did not produce positive changes in J.T.M.’s behavior, the trial court modified his placement to the DOC. J.T.M. argues that decision was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] J.T.M. was born on February 17, 2010. At all relevant times, he lived with his mother (“Mother”), stepfather, and siblings in South Bend, which is located in St. Joseph County. On May 12, 2023, while police officers were detaining J.T.M.’s brother in Elkhart County, J.T.M. “came up yelling and asking why his brother was being arrested.” (App. Vol. III at 55.) Officers asked J.T.M. to lower his voice, but J.T.M. did not do so. J.T.M. told officers “things would go differently” if he saw them without badges and uniforms. (Id.) The officers repeatedly asked J.T.M. to “lower his voice and stop yelling” but J.T.M. refused to comply. (Id.) Eventually, officers informed J.T.M. that he was being arrested, and J.T.M. “took off running[.]” (Id.) Police arrested J.T.M. later that day at another location.

[3] Based thereon, on May 17, 2023, the State filed a delinquency petition in Elkhart County under cause number 20C01-2305-JD-181 (“Delinquency Case 1”) alleging J.T.M. was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if he were an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. J.T.M. was placed on home detention pending his initial hearing on the matter. On May 31, 2023, the Elkhart County court held its initial hearing. J.T.M. admitted he was a juvenile delinquent based on the State's allegations. The Elkhart County court adjudicated him as a juvenile delinquent and transferred the case to St. Joseph County for disposition. On July 7, 2023, St. Joseph County court (hereinafter “the trial court”) accepted jurisdiction of Delinquency Case 1 and scheduled a dispositional hearing for August 1, 2023.

[4] After midnight on August 1, 2023, J.T.M. was “being disrespectful” to Mother. (Id. at 35.) J.T.M.’s friend was visiting and J.T.M. asked Mother if the friend could stay the night. Mother denied his request because J.T.M. was being disrespectful and because J.T.M. had his dispositional hearing later that morning. J.T.M. became upset and “began using profanity and yelling at her.” (Id.) Mother pushed J.T.M. onto the bed, and J.T.M. continued to yell. He eventually left the house and encountered K.M., his sister, whom he punched “in the chest using two closed fists at the same time.” (Id.) J.T.M. began walking down the street. Mother approached J.T.M., who “got in her face again, this time punching her one time with a closed fist above her left eye.” (Id.) Around 2:00 a.m., Mother called the police, who came to the house and arrested J.T.M. The trial court continued the dispositional hearing for Delinquency Case 1.

[5] On August 7, 2023, the State filed a delinquency petition that alleged, based on the facts of the August 1, 2023, incident, that J.T.M. was a delinquent child because he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would be two counts of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery (“Delinquency Case 2”). On August 8, 2023, the trial court held an initial hearing on the matter. J.T.M. admitted to the count involving Mother and asked the trial court to dismiss the count involving K.M. The trial court agreed and adjudicated J.T.M. a delinquent. The trial court scheduled a dispositional hearing for both delinquency adjudications for August 29, 2023.

[6] On August 29, 2023, the trial court held the dispositional hearing. J.T.M.’s predispositional report indicated Mother stated that J.T.M. was “disrespectful, defiant, and leaves home without permission” and “doesn't like anyone in an authority position and doesn't like being told what to do.” (Id. at 10.) The report also noted that J.T.M. had been diagnosed with ADHD, PTSD, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder in 2016, but he had not taken his medication or participated in services for those conditions since 2021 because Mother “reported improved behavior.” (Id. at 11.) The probation department asked the trial court to place J.T.M. “on probation with supervision in the community with increased structure of home detention and intensive therapeutic services” because J.T.M. was “very young, has never had the benefit of community supervision, and both he and the family are open to treatment services.” (Tr. Vol. II at 16.) The trial court placed J.T.M. on “Strict and Indefinite Probation” in Mother's care. (App. Vol. III at 3.) He was also ordered to attend school “with no unexcused absences, tardies or suspensions, and obey all school rules and regulations[,]” to participate in family preservation services with Mother, and to refrain from the use of illegal substances or alcohol. (Id.)

[7] On November 8, 2023, the State filed a petition for modification of placement that alleged J.T.M. tested positive for marijuana multiple times, smoked marijuana at home multiple times, caused disruptions at school, and had been suspended from school pending expulsion for possessing a vape pen containing marijuana multiple times. On November 17, 2023, the trial court held a detention hearing. During that hearing, Probation Officer Stacey Poynter testified J.T.M. reported to her that he had been using marijuana to “cope with the stressors he's been experiencing” including “the loss of a family friend and repeated death threats that he has been receiving by gang-affiliated peers.” (Tr. Vol. II at 24.) The State also requested psychological testing for J.T.M. The same day, the trial court issued its order on the detention hearing that granted the State's request for a psychological assessment and detained J.T.M. at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center pending another modification of placement hearing.

[8] On December 19, 2023, the trial court held its modification of placement hearing and placed J.T.M. on home detention for ninety days. The trial court ordered J.T.M. and Mother to continue participating in family preservation services and ordered J.T.M. to complete a medication evaluation and follow all recommendations therefrom. The order also stated that J.T.M. was to abide by the conditions set forth in the initial disposition order, which included attending school and refraining from the use of illegal substances and alcohol.

[9] On March 17, 2024, the probation department filed a probation status report that informed the trial court that Mother wanted J.T.M. “removed from her home due to his level of disrespect and refusal to follow house rules.” (App. Vol. II at 74.) On March 27, 2024, the probation department filed a petition to modify J.T.M.’s placement. The probation department alleged J.T.M. had been expelled from his local middle school, but he was participating in an educational program called the “Approve Program[.]” (Id. at 67.) The petition alleged that, as part of the Approve Program, J.T.M. had attended school only once in the most recent eight days, had accumulated eleven absences since mid-January 2024, and his grades included “F's in both English and Math[.]” (Id.) In addition, the probation department alleged that J.T.M. had appeared “under the influence as his speech was slurred ․ [and] appeared to sway and stumble when standing” while attending family preservation services and that Mother had reported he returned home late one night “so high he could barely keep his eyes open.” (Id. at 68.)

[10] On March 28, 2024, the trial court held a modification hearing. J.T.M. did not appear and the trial court issued a body attachment order for J.T.M.’s arrest. Police arrested J.T.M. on May 9, 2024. On May 13, 2024, the trial court held a detention hearing. The probation department reported J.T.M. had resisted law enforcement when arrested on May 9. The trial court found that it was in J.T.M.’s best interests to be detained at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center pending the modification hearing, which the trial court scheduled for June 4, 2024.

[11] On June 4, 2024, at the modification hearing, the trial court concluded a more restrictive placement was necessary “given [J.T.M.’s] young age and already having so many referrals.” (Tr. Vol. II at 58.) The trial court noted J.T.M. engaged in “good behavior” while detained and “[t]hat does ․ give some reason for optimism[.]” (Id.) The same day, the trial court issued an order requiring J.T.M. to “participate in and successfully complete placement at Bashor Children's Home in Goshen, Indiana and follow all rules and regulations[,]” refrain from using illegal substances or alcohol, and obey the law. (App. Vol. II at 45.)

[12] On August 22, 2024, the probation department filed a status report. Therein, it noted J.T.M. was “easily triggered and can be very argumentative with staff” but he had “shown some improvement in his ability to manage his anger and frustrations resulting in less intervention.” (Id. at 43.) The probation department reported, regarding J.T.M.’s progress at Bashor:

[J.T.M.] is very well engaged in individual therapy and has displayed an openness to feedback provided to him. Per his monthly report, [J.T.M.] seems to do well applying what he is learning from individual sessions. In family therapy, [J.T.M.] has been more vulnerable about his frustrations with [Mother]. [J.T.M.] was open to feedback that [Mother] provided him and has seemingly maintained his forgiveness toward her as a result of the ongoing sessions.

[J.T.M.] generally engages well during the various groups offered in treatment. He can, at times, engage in some disruptiveness but overall takes redirection well. It was noted that [J.T.M.] is able to share positive insights and makes connections with the material being offered in groups. [J.T.M.] is currently working on journal 1.1 of the 7 Challenges journals. [J.T.M.] has been working on identifying his strengths and weaknesses, in addition to setting some short term and long term goals, during his individual skills training sessions.

(Id.)

[13] On September 9, 2024, Bashor staff found a vape pen in J.T.M.’s belongings. On September 29, 2024, J.T.M. appeared to be under the influence of some drug, and he “began throwing things around the unit and threatening staff.” (Tr. Vol. at 69.) When he was tested the next day, his result was positive for marijuana. On October 1, 2024, J.T.M. left the unit to “trash a staff member's car” and managed to trap the staff member in her car until he was physically restrained. (Id.) On October 5, 2024, J.T.M. left the unit without permission to engage in a “disturbance” with another teenager, damaged Bashor property to get back into the unit, threatened female staff until they locked themselves in an office, left the unit to throw trash on and kick dents into one staff member's vehicle. (Id. at 70.) Police had to be called to place J.T.M. in handcuffs and move him to a secure unit. Because of J.T.M.’s aggression, Bashor no longer felt it was an appropriate placement for J.T.M. On October 11, 2024, the probation department filed a petition to modify J.T.M.’s placement.

[14] On October 15, 2024, the trial court held a modification hearing. J.T.M.’s probation officer, Ashley McOmber, testified that she had spoken with Bashor staff, who reported J.T.M.’s behavior to her. McOmber told the trial court that Bashor staff told her “that [J.T.M.] needs some kind of treatment to address his trauma, at this point in time due to his aggression they do not feel that they are equipped to do that.” (Id. at 70-1.) The probation department asked the trial court to place J.T.M. in the DOC. When announcing its decision to place J.T.M. in the DOC, the trial court explained:

This issue is that we have been down this road before. As far as I can tell, we, we have two cases here and as far as I can tell this is now the third modification. And even besides that it appears that this was not an isolated incident at Basher [sic] that they have attempted to accommodate this young man only to be faced with the same behavior. It seems clear that [J.T.M.] needs treatment that he is unwilling to accept and therefore he needs to be incapacitated.

(Id. at 72-3.) The trial court issued its written order placing J.T.M. in the DOC that same day.

Discussion and Decision

[15] J.T.M. challenges his placement in the DOC. The juvenile court system is founded on the notion of parens patriae, which allows the juvenile court to step into the shoes of the parents. R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). The parens patriae doctrine gives juvenile courts power to further the best interests of the child, “which implies a broad discretion unknown in the adult court system.” Id. (quoting In re K.G., 808 NE.2d 631, 634 (Ind. 2004)). Accordingly, juvenile courts have “wide latitude and great flexibility” in fashioning dispositions for delinquents, and we review a juvenile court's decision for an abuse of discretion. K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. A decision is an abuse of discretion if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court or against “the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn” from those facts and circumstances. Id.

[16] Juvenile courts enjoy “ ‘wide latitude and great flexibility’ ” in fashioning dispositions for delinquents. Id. (quoting C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied). In addition, our legislature has also delineated several factors for trial courts to consider in making such decisions:

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.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.

[17] J.T.M. contends the trial court abused its discretion when it placed him in the DOC because it did not consider his struggles with mental health issues such as ADHD and PTSD. He also asks us to consider the positive progress he made in August 2024. He asserts he “had not yet had enough time to address [his mental health issues] in residential treatment” and thus a less restrictive placement was more appropriate than the DOC. (Br. of Appellant at 24.)

[18] However, J.T.M.’s argument ignores the trial court's past attempts at providing J.T.M. with less restrictive placement options and J.T.M.’s failure to benefit from any of those. While J.T.M. and Mother participated in family preservation services throughout the case, the record indicates J.T.M. only made progress for a brief amount of time in late 2023. When placed on home detention, J.T.M. smoked marijuana, was expelled from school, skipped his modification hearing, was missing for almost two months, and resisted law enforcement when he was eventually arrested. When placed in residential treatment at Bashor, J.T.M. initially made progress; however, his disruptive and defiant behavior escalated until he had to be placed in a more secure unit at the facility because he damaged property and threatened staff members. The Bashor representative indicated that, after those incidents, it was unable to provide treatment to J.T.M. Because J.T.M.’s negative behavior continued while he was in multiple less restrictive placements and he became so aggressive toward staff in his residential placement, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered him placed in the DOC. See M.M. v. State, 189 N.E.3d 1163, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by granting wardship to DOC when “numerous and intensive efforts and lesser restrictive placements” had failed).

Conclusion

[19] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed J.T.M. in the DOC after less restrictive placements failed. Accordingly, we affirm.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44-1-3-1(a).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a).

May, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and Scheele concur. Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.