Z.R., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Z.R. appeals the juvenile court's dispositional order placing him in the custody of the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Z.R. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because the DOC was not the least restrictive placement available. Because numerous other less-restrictive placements and services had not successfully modified Z.R.’s behavior and Z.R. had absconded from a prior placement, we cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 23, 2023, Z.R. was driving a stolen vehicle when Gary Police Officer Alphonse Mariani initiated a traffic stop. Z.R. fled Officer Mariani in the stolen vehicle and, when he eventually stopped, he fled on foot into an abandoned residence, where he was later found by police. The State of Indiana (“State”) filed a delinquency petition under Cause Number 45D06-2311-JD-000795 (“JD-795”) that alleged Z.R. was delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony auto theft,¹ Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement,² Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement,³ and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.⁴

[3] After a detention hearing on November 27, 2023, the juvenile court released Z.R. into the custody of his sister Asiera Bonds ⁵ to serve in-home detention pending resolution of the delinquency petition. The detention order required Z.R. to not possess any weapons – including guns, knives, accessories to guns, and explosives – and to refrain from posting pictures or videos of such items on social media. The order also prohibited Z.R. from “hosting parties for peers at home” and posting pictures or videos thereof on social media. (App. Vol. 2 at 67.)

[4] On December 13, 2023, the State petitioned for the court to detain Z.R. because he allegedly violated the terms of his in-home detention by posting to social media pictures and videos of several friends visiting him at home, photographs of himself flashing a firearm, and a picture of himself smoking marijuana. Following a hearing, the juvenile court found Z.R. violated the terms of his detention and ordered Z.R. detained in the Lake County Juvenile Center.

[5] On January 25, 2024, at the fact-finding hearing on the delinquency petition, Z.R. admitted he had committed an act that would be Level 6 felony auto theft if committed by an adult. In exchange, the court dismissed the remaining allegations and adjudicated him a delinquent. The juvenile court placed Z.R. on intensive probation with GPS ankle monitoring. The juvenile court again released Z.R. to Bonds and ordered Z.R. to participate in the Family Preservation program. The terms of his probation required that Z.R. remain at home unless given permission to leave by his probation officer, that he refrain from tampering with his ankle monitor, and that he have no future criminal contact with law enforcement.

[6] Around March 5, 2024, Z.R. removed his GPS ankle monitor and left home, so the juvenile court issued a warrant for his arrest. Z.R. did not report to probation or return home for approximately four months. On July 16, 2024, officers with the Hobart Police Department stopped Z.R. and several other males who were walking around with firearms and suspected of stealing from a nearby Speedway gas station. When asked to identify himself, Z.R. provided three fake names. When officers tried to take Z.R. into custody, Z.R. would not enter the police vehicle as instructed. After repeated instructions failed, Officer William Jones swept Z.R.’s feet from under him and pushed Z.R. into the back seat. When Z.R. landed in the seat, he yelled and kicked Jones in the groin. Z.R. admitted his true identity during the ride to the Hobart Police Department. After processing, police transported Z.R. to the Lake County Juvenile Center.

[7] On July 17, 2024, the State filed a delinquency petition under Cause Number 45D06-2407-JD-000522 (“JD-522”) against Z.R. for allegedly committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official,⁶ Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement,⁷ and three counts of Class B misdemeanor false informing.⁸ The juvenile court held a detention hearing the same day and ordered Z.R. remain detained in the Lake County Juvenile Center because it was the least restrictive placement that was in Z.R.’s best interests. The State also moved to modify the dispositional decree in cause number JD-795 because Z.R. violated the terms of his in-home detention. On September 12, 2024, Z.R. admitted violating his in-home detention under cause number JD-795 and committing acts that would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor false informing under JD-522. The court again adjudicated Z.R. a delinquent and ordered him detained at the Lake County Juvenile Center until his dispositional hearing because that placement was “least restrictive[,]” “in the child's best interest[,]” and “essential to protect the community.” (Id. at 184.)

[8] On October 3, 2024, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing at which it reviewed Z.R.’s juvenile history, his repeated failure to abide by the terms of his placements, and his prior opportunities for rehabilitation via Family Preservation, home-based therapy, community service work, written apology letters, intensive probation, in-home detention, and time at the Lake County Juvenile Center. Probation informed the court that only one residential placement facility – Rite of Passage – would accept Z.R., but that it would not have a bed available for Z.R. for about two weeks. Probation also reported to the court that Z.R. had misbehaved in the Juvenile Center by “reach[ing] into the control booth and [pushing] stuff off of the counter when he was upset about a detention officer.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10.) Probation recommended Z.R. be placed in the DOC because of his failures to comply with less-restrictive forms of placement. Bonds asked the court not to send Z.R. to the DOC because she would be unable to visit him and be involved in his treatment. Because of Z.R.’s juvenile history, age, flight risk, and ability to begin services immediately at the DOC, the juvenile court awarded wardship of Z.R. to the DOC.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Z.R. 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. In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d 631, 635 (Ind. 2004). 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 criminal court system.” Id. Accordingly, 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 court or against “the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn” from those facts and circumstances. Id.

[10] While juvenile courts have “ ‘wide latitude and great flexibility’ ” when fashioning dispositions for delinquents, id. (quoting C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied), our legislature also delineated factors a juvenile court should consider as it makes its decision:

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.

[11] Z.R. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it sent him to the DOC because a residential treatment facility was “an option that had not been tried before that was the least restrictive and most family-like setting.” (Appellant's Br. at 10.) Although Z.R. had not yet been in a residential placement, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion.

[12] We first note that, while the statute requires a juvenile court to choose the least restrictive disposition, that disposition must also be “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” Ind. Code 31-37-18-6. Even if a less harsh option may exist at the time of a juvenile's disposition, “there are times when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and of society.” D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Herein, the juvenile court explicitly found Z.R. was “engaging in dangerous behaviors which jeopardize the physical and/or mental health of the child and/or the educational services for the child.” (App. Vol. 3 at 23.) At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court discussed being unable to trust that Z.R. would remain in “a residential facility that's not locked” when he had absconded for four months from home detention with GPS monitoring. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15.)

[13] Z.R. had been given several opportunities to correct his behavior prior to this final dispositional hearing – at home on probation, at home on detention with GPS monitoring, and at Lake County Juvenile Center – and he had been ordered to participate in several services – such as therapy, Family Preservation programs, community service work, and apology-letter writing. Despite being given these services and opportunities, Z.R. posted to social media pictures of himself violating probation by partying with friends, using illegal drugs, and possessing weapons; he removed his GPS monitor and absconded for four months; he committed additional delinquent acts when located; and he misbehaved in the Juvenile Center while awaiting the dispositional hearing from which he appeals. Z.R.’s history of reoffending and his failures to abide by the terms of his placements lead us to conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its broad discretion when it placed Z.R. at the DOC. See, e.g., K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (when a juvenile has been given several chances to reform their behavior and fails to abide by the conditions of community placements, placement at the DOC is not an abuse of discretion), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[14] In light of Z.R.’s failure to respond positively to the numerous less restrictive alternatives and his prior flight from placement, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to the DOC. We accordingly affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(1)(B)(i).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(c)(1)(A).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2.

5.   Z.R.’s mother is deceased and, at the time of the events herein, his father was incarcerated. As a result, Bonds had been designated Z.R.’s legal guardian.

6.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1).

7.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

8.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-3(d)(1).

May, Judge.

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