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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] M.B. appeals her commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a juvenile-delinquency adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] M.B. was born in May 2008. Her juvenile history started in August 2023. The State alleged she was a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor battery after she got into a fight at school and was expelled. The court withheld judgment, and the State agreed to recommend dismissal if M.B. successfully completed the CHANGE Academy. But M.B. was removed from the CHANGE Academy shortly after due to her disruptive behavior. In October 2023, the court entered a delinquency adjudication and placed M.B. on formal probation with services.

[3] That December, M.B. attempted suicide and was hospitalized. The Department of Child Services (DCS) became involved after her father removed her from the hospital against medical advice. In March 2024, DCS took over providing services including therapy, family preservation, and substance-abuse assistance, and M.B. was released from probation. According to her probation officer Kelly Mattes, M.B. was “basically on house arrest at that time.” Tr. Vol. II p. 83.

[4] M.B. completed DCS services in May 2024. But just one month later, she resumed her delinquent behavior. One night in June, the father of M.B.’s ex-boyfriend, N.N., called the police and reported that M.B. and two other girls came onto his property, yelled obscenities at N.N., and knocked over a trash can. Officers later found the girls a few blocks away carrying traffic cones they had taken from the road. Because it was past curfew and officers couldn't reach M.B.’s father, they detained her. While being placed in the back of a patrol car, M.B. resisted, pushing against the door until the officers had to push it back to close it. The State then filed a delinquency petition in August 2024 alleging M.B. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 17C01-2408-JD-20.

[5] The following month, M.B. and N.N. were at the county fair when M.B. approached N.N. from behind and slapped his head with “Nair,” a chemical hair-removal product. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 98. In October 2024, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging M.B. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 17C01-2410-JD-29.

[6] The juvenile court held a combined fact-finding hearing in JD-20 and JD-29 on December 10. In JD-20, M.B. admitted to the allegation of Class A misdemeanor theft, and the court found that she committed what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In JD-29, the court found she committed what would be Class B misdemeanor battery. The court adjudicated M.B. a delinquent in both cases and set the matters for a combined dispositional hearing.

[7] Just two days later, on December 12, M.B. got into a fight with N.N., hitting him on the head in a school hallway. When two staff members tried to separate them, M.B. pushed and struck each of them. The State then filed a delinquency petition alleging M.B. committed three acts of what would be Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 17C01-2412-JD-43. M.B. was detained and sent to the Johnson County Juvenile Detention Center. There, M.B. caused problems by fighting with other detainees, and facility personnel informed Mattes that they would only house M.B. until the date of the dispositional hearing. In January 2025, the juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing at which M.B. admitted to the allegation of Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult against N.N., the State dismissed the remaining two allegations of battery, and the juvenile court adjudicated her delinquent.

[8] Later that month, the juvenile court held a combined dispositional hearing for JD-20, JD-29, and JD-43. Mattes testified that when M.B. began probation, she had trouble complying with the rules. She left home without permission, smoked marijuana, refused to take her prescribed medications, and would not listen to her father. Mattes further testified that after M.B. was released from probation, she continued to receive services through DCS until May 2024 and did well while receiving those services. But shortly after DCS services ended, M.B. began to commit delinquent acts. Mattes indicated that M.B. could have continued to voluntarily receive services after DCS services ended. But, as M.B. later testified at the hearing, M.B. did not want to participate in such services.

[9] Mattes also testified that M.B.’s father told her that he “can't control” M.B. Tr. Vol. II p. 85. Mattes stated that M.B. was not a good candidate for probation because M.B. had made it clear that “she does not wish to cooperate with the Probation Department.” Id. Moreover, M.B. told Mattes that “she did not want to have anything to do with the predispositional report,” and when Mattes tried to engage with M.B., M.B. said she “[did]n't even want to talk to [her].” Id. Mattes recommended that M.B. be placed in the custody of the DOC. She said the DOC had programs that would provide M.B. with cognitive behavioral therapy and substance-abuse treatment. She did not believe M.B. would be successful in private residential treatment based on her behavior and that she did not believe there were outside programs that would be effective for M.B.

[10] At the end of the hearing, the court committed M.B. to the DOC, explaining:

It is my considered opinion that [M.B.] is not supervisable in the community on probation. She has demonstrated that on multiple occasions. I also do not believe that placing her in any sort of a residential facility would be successful due to her violent behaviors and her acting out, which apparently continued even in detention in Johnson County. And therefore, I don't have really very many choices but to award wardship to the Indiana Department of Correction[ ], which I now do, and she is Ordered committed to the Indiana Department of Correction[ ] Juvenile Division. Now, I would like her to get the services there, and I have no desire for her to be there any longer than necessary. So, it is not a defined commitment. In other words, she will be released when they believe it is appropriate to release her, and we all know that we've seen that be extremely fast․

Id. at 107.

[11] M.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] M.B. contends the juvenile court erred in placing her in the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the juvenile court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:

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.

The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.

[13] M.B. contends the juvenile court should have ordered a less restrictive placement. But as Probation Officer Mattes and the court pointed out, less restrictive options have already been tried but haven't had a deterrent effect. M.B. had previously been on probation and received services through DCS and yet continued to commit delinquent acts. She received a withheld judgment in her first case with a chance to avoid probation by completing the CHANGE Academy but was removed shortly after due to her disruptive behavior. Although she successfully completed probation, Mattes testified that M.B. had trouble complying with the rules at first. M.B. was “basically on house arrest” and allowed to leave only under supervision while receiving services from DCS. Once that ended, M.B. declined to voluntarily continue treatment, despite the availability of services in her area. The month after completing DCS services, M.B. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and theft. While awaiting a fact-finding hearing in that case, M.B. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor battery when she attacked N.N. at the county fair. Then, just two days after being adjudicated delinquent in those cases, she again attacked N.N.—this time in a school hallway—leading to another delinquency adjudication for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor battery. M.B. was held at the Johnson County Juvenile Detention Center while awaiting her dispositional hearing. But even there, she continued to cause problems by fighting with other detainees, and the detention center agreed to keep her only until the dispositional hearing.

[14] M.B argues that less-restrictive placements such as residential placement, in-home placement with her father, or home detention would be more appropriate. But Mattes testified that M.B.’s father stated he could not control her behavior. Additionally, M.B. refused to cooperate with the preparation of the predispositional report and told Mattes that she “[did]n't even want to talk to [her]” and “she does not wish to cooperate with the Probation Department.” The juvenile court also found that placement in a private residential facility was not an option for M.B. because of her “violent behaviors and ․ acting out, which apparently continued even in detention in Johnson County.”

[15] M.B. relies on E.H v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), and C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), two cases where we reversed a juvenile's placement in the DOC, but both cases are easily distinguishable. In E.H., while the juvenile had a delinquency history, his history did not include acts of violence, he made progress with his mental-health treatment, he had a suitable foster home available, and in committing the juvenile to the DOC, the trial court failed to explain why less-restrictive alternatives were inappropriate. Here, by contrast, M.B. had a violent juvenile history, including adjudications for battery and resisting law enforcement; she did not take her prescribed medications; she lacked a suitable home, as her father reported he “can't control her”; and the court made specific findings supporting its conclusion that less-restrictive options were no longer appropriate. While M.B. cites mental-health issues and trauma, the court noted that her needs can be addressed through cognitive behavioral therapy and substance-abuse treatment available at the DOC.

[16] In C.H., the juvenile had no prior adjudications, he had behaved well in detention, and his probation officer recommended he be placed on probation. On the other hand, as explained above, M.B. has a history of delinquent behavior, refused to cooperate with the probation department and predispositional report, declined the available services provided by DCS in her area, caused problems by fighting with other detainees in Johnson County Juvenile Detention Center, and continued engaging in delinquent acts. Notably, unlike in C.H., M.B.’s probation officer recommended placement in the DOC. Lastly, as the court explained, M.B.’s placement in the DOC “is not a defined commitment,” and it has “no desire for [M.B.] to be [in the DOC] any longer than necessary.”

[17] For all the above reasons, the juvenile court acted well within its discretion by placing M.B. in the DOC.

[18] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.