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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] B.S. appeals the juvenile court's award of guardianship over him to the Department of Correction after he violated the terms of his probation. B.S. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded guardianship over him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] B.S., who was born January 6, 2011, has been diagnosed with ADHD and intermittent explosive disorder. In December 2022, in Pike County, he committed a delinquent act that would be Level 6 felony intimidation if committed by an adult. The trial court placed B.S. on probation and ordered him to undergo a psychological evaluation and follow the recommendations made. B.S. violated the terms of his probation, and the court placed him in secured detention for fifteen days. After that placement, B.S. returned to school, but he was later expelled.

[4] On November 11, 2023, B.S. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. Specifically, B.S. hit his father in the head with a hedge trimmer. After the State filed a petition alleging that B.S. was a juvenile delinquent, B.S. admitted to the offense, and the trial court placed him on six months of supervised probation with the first sixty days on house arrest (“JD-39”).

[5] On May 22, 2024, police officers were called to B.S.’s home after he created a disturbance for approximately one hour by repeatedly honking the horn in his sister's car in the driveway. When officers arrived, they learned that B.S. had left the area on foot. B.S. eventually returned and confronted the officers. While he was talking to the officers, B.S. attempted to remove an antenna from a police vehicle. When an officer told him to stop, he stated that he would “do what he wanted.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 69. After officers placed B.S. in handcuffs, he threatened to kill the officers. B.S. was placed in a detention facility.

[6] The State filed a petition alleging that B.S. was a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor intimidation and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult (“JD-136”). And the State moved the trial court to modify B.S.’s probation in JD-39. In light of B.S.’s “increasingly erratic behavior,” the State asked the trial court to keep B.S. in the secure detention facility, and the court agreed. Tr. p. 24. Following an admission hearing, the court ordered that B.S. be placed on house arrest with a GPS monitor. The court prohibited B.S. from using “internet capable devices” without direct supervision. Id. at 43.

[7] During a July 2 hearing, B.S.’s probation officer, Melissa Niehaus, shared with the court that B.S.’s father had reported that B.S.’s “behavior ha[d] improved” lately. Id. at 48. But Niehaus also stated that B.S. had been using a cell phone and Xbox game console without supervision. Niehaus stated that she had been “looking at places that provide diagnostic [sic] and evaluations that are contracted providers through the Department of Child Services.” Id. at 49. She had “submitted applications to four different places,” and Damar in Indianapolis had “accepted him to a potential diagnostic and evaluation program” but they had an eight- to twelve-week waitlist. Id.

[8] At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court spoke directly to B.S.:

THE COURT: ․ [B.S.], I can tell you that this is not going to end well for you if this continues, this level of behavior. I am gonna order that your cell phone be taken and the Xbox console be taken. You were expelled from school. To say that there's nothing for him to do is [sic] thirteen years old and expelled from school. I would say go to the library and get some books.

[B.S.]: I'm not doing that.

THE COURT: But your—I saw that, and I've been watching you. Your level of disrespect to people of authority is very, very troubling. I'm not doing that, I'm not doing this․ This kind of behavior is just completely inappropriate. You're gonna—apparently, it's whatever [B.S.] wants to do when [B.S.] wants to do it kind of attitude is what I see. So, for you to sit here and tell me you're not gonna do it—you know—your phone will be confiscated and held by probation․

* * *

[B.S.]: My [use of my cell phone and Xbox] has been supervised.

THE COURT: I found otherwise, so as a result, I've ordered them to be confiscated.

[B.S.]: Ask my dad. Ask my mom.

THE COURT: All right. That's all for today.

[B.S.]: I ain't giving them.

THE COURT: You're not what?

[B.S.]: I'm not giving up my phone.

THE COURT: Ma'am [referring to B.S.’s mother], if I don't receive the phone, I'm ordering you to ․ bring it back, you could be held in contempt of court.

[B.S.’s mother]: Okay.

THE COURT: If [B.S.] causes any problems—understand, it's not your phone. You're thirteen, you don't own anything. It's your parents’ phone and they're allowing you to use it. It's not your phone. At age thirteen, you don't own property.

[B.S.]: Okay. They own it. You can't take it.

THE COURT: And I'm ordering them to—because of your inability to follow the rules․

[B.S.]: Okay. Then they can have it.

THE COURT: And if you need—so, it's their phone, not your phone.

[B.S.]: It's not yours.

THE COURT: And I'm ordering it to be held by probation. Ma'am, do we have any ․

[B.S.’s mother]: No, I'll do it.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. If you cause your parents any problems—and there's any ․ sort of violence or ․ anything of that sort, [B.S.], you're gonna ․ find yourself in secure detention. If you want to go back to secure detention, that's your call․ I've ordered your parents to do something. They have to do it otherwise they could go to the security center for contempt of court. So, they're just gonna follow the court order.

[B.S.]: I'll just break it.

THE COURT: It's not yours to break. If you break it, you could be charged for additional matters such as criminal mischief.

[B.S.]: It's not possible.

THE COURT: Well, you're thirteen, [B.S.], you've got a lot to learn yet. Yeah.

[B.S.]: Okay

Id. at 53-57.

[9] On August 11, B.S.’s parents twice called law enforcement, the second time after B.S. struck his father in the face with a cardboard box and threatened to punch him with his fist. On the second visit, officers searched B.S.’s room and found vaping paraphernalia, including a vape pen containing THC oil. Officers also found a cell phone hidden under a pillow on B.S.’s bed. Officers transported B.S. to a detention facility.

[10] B.S. stayed in detention until a bed became available for him at Safe Passages on August 27. After “numerous incidents,” B.S. was terminated from Safe Passages on September 19. Id. at 76. B.S.’s violations included pinching the buttock of another child; peeling paint off of the walls in his room; making racial slurs; and making inappropriate comments to staff members. B.S. also gave another child medication prescribed for B.S. In a letter detailing the reasons for his termination from the program, the director stated that B.S. had

displayed an ongoing resistance to the services being offered to him. He refused all intake processes along with malingering during any psychological assessment he was offered. He has become a significant risk ․ despite efforts to support his stay at Safe Passage. His behaviors are leading to other youth feeding into his negativity resulting in the program of others being affected. He had a substantiated PREA allegation against him[, namely, the buttock pinching incident], multiple behaviors requiring physical management, and as of recent, he has been quote unquote cheeking his evening medications and giving them to peers. This criminogenic and manipulative nature of his behaviors creates an unsafe environment for other youth.

Id. at 77. B.S. was returned to a detention facility.

[11] During a dispositional hearing on October 8, Niehaus told the court that B.S. had

been given numerous opportunities, and he has just continued to violate the orders that you have put in place. I believe that with all that and all that we have done to try to assist [B.S.], I believe that he is a risk to himself and others, and therefore, I feel that the department of correction[ ] would be appropriate.

Id. at 84. The State agreed. After hearing testimony by Niehaus, the trial court ordered that B.S. be placed in the DOC. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[12] B.S. challenges the trial court's order that he be placed in the wardship of the Department of Correction. As our Supreme Court has explained:

The specific disposition of a delinquent is within the juvenile court's discretion, to be guided by the following considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent, guardian, or custodian. We reverse only for an abuse of discretion, namely a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.

K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded guardianship over B.S. to the DOC. The record is clear that the trial court gave him numerous opportunities at less-restrictive placements, including house arrest, and B.S. repeatedly declined to cooperate in those settings. In particular, B.S. repeatedly fought with his parents while on house arrest, including battering his father; he refused to be told what to do, even talking back to the judge during hearings; he used a cell phone unsupervised when he knew that was prohibited; and he violated several rules during his short stay at Safe Passages. The trial court was not required to continue offering such opportunities to B.S. See, e.g., K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[14] Still, B.S. points out that placement in the DOC, especially at his young age of thirteen, is a “last resort” and inappropriate under the circumstances here. Appellant's Br. at 14. He maintains that his offenses are “relatively minor” and that less-restrictive placements in a residential setting have not yet been tried. Id. at 17. B.S. argues that he has “serious, untreated mental health issues” and deserves a chance to receive appropriate mental health treatment outside of the DOC. Id. at 20. In short, B.S. urges us to reverse his DOC placement and instruct the trial court to place him in a residential facility.

[15] We are sympathetic to the mental health challenges B.S. has faced in his young life. But the trial court has given B.S. multiple chances to show progress in home detention, and he violated several rules during his short stay at Safe Passages. While B.S. minimizes those violations and argues that Safe Passages did not provide him with appropriate care, that is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.¹ Again, the director of Safe Passages stated that B.S. “displayed an ongoing resistance to the services being offered to him. He refused all intake processes along with malingering during any psychological assessment he was offered. He has become a significant risk ․ despite efforts to support his stay at Safe Passage.” Tr. p. 77.

[16] The trial court heard extensive testimony by Niehaus and B.S.’s parents at the final dispositional hearing and carefully considered the evidence before concluding that placement in DOC was appropriate because there is no less restrictive placement appropriate for B.S. The trial court especially noted that B.S.’s “criminogenic and manipulative nature and behavior create[d] an unsafe environment for other youths” at Safe Passages. Id. at 101. That, along with B.S.’s refusal to follow rules at home and acts of violence against his father, led the court to conclude that placement at DOC was best both for B.S. and for the community's safety.

[17] The trial court's placement decision was neither contrary to law, nor an abuse of its discretion under the facts and circumstances of this case. We affirm the trial court's award of guardianship over B.S. to the DOC.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   B.S. attempts to analogize the facts of this case to the facts in Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), and C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). In each of those cases, we reversed the trial court's placement of the juvenile in DOC. However, each of those cases is factually distinguishable. In Q.H., the juvenile had committed a single offense and the court relied on a “defective pre-dispositional report” in committing him to the DOC. 216 N.E.3d at 1203. And in C.H., the juvenile was placed in a detention center pending a final dispositional hearing. The director reported that C.H. “had made ‘remarkable progress’ and ‘amazing strides’ ” during his stay and that he “ ‘has shown maturity and a [sense] of responsibility’; ‘always volunteers to clean and do chores helping the staff when asked’; ‘is always polite and respectful when treated with respect’; and ‘is well liked by his peers and gets along with everyone, always avoiding confrontations when they arise.’ ” Id. at 204.

Mathias, Judge.

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