B.P., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] While he was on probation for threatening to shoot five students at a school, B.P., a minor, tested positive for buprenorphine and was suspended from school for using suboxone. Following a probation violation hearing, the juvenile court ordered B.P. to be placed with the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). B.P. now appeals, raising a single issue for our review: Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering DOC placement.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In January 2023, B.P. threatened to shoot five students at school because he believed they caused his breakup with his girlfriend. Initially, the consequence for threatening to kill fellow students was to prohibit B.P. from being on Central Noble School property. Unable to abide by this simple prohibition, B.P. was found on school grounds a few months later. Consequently, on June 29, the State filed a petition alleging B.P. was a delinquent for having committed intimidation, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. On July 26, B.P. admitted to the allegations and was adjudicated as a delinquent. B.P. tested positive for marijuana both before and after he admitted to the allegations. At the August 31 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed B.P. on probation for up to a year, with electronic monitoring for 60 days.

[4] On September 4, a mere 4 days after starting probation, B.P. removed his electronic monitoring device. When B.P. met with his probation officer two days later, he admitted to removing his home detention anklet and to using marijuana. The probation officer filed a Probation Violation Report, and the State filed a new delinquency petition, alleging B.P. had committed escape, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. B.P. admitted to committing the act of escape, so the juvenile court adjudicated him as a delinquent and found he had violated his probation. After a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court determined that it was in B.P.’s best interests to be removed from his home and placed at White's Residential Facility, which specializes in substance use. On May 23, 2024, B.P. was successfully discharged from White's Residential Facility and placed on probation for one year.

[5] On August 26, while still on probation, B.P. tested positive for buprenorphine. On September 26, B.P. was suspended from school for using suboxone in school, for which he tested positive. School staff reported that when confronting B.P. about handing out illegal substances, “[B.P.] put something in his mouth from his wallet and admitted to giving out suboxone.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 182. B.P also “appeared high at his probation appointment.” Tr. Vol II at 101. Finding that all other community and placement options were exhausted, the juvenile court committed B.P. to DOC. After the juvenile court committed him to DOC, B.P. attempted to flee from the courtroom. Once B.P. was restrained and brought back to the courtroom, apparently no longer wearing a sweatshirt B.P. had been wearing, the trial judge noticed that B.P. was “sporting a T shirt with a marijuana leaf that says high, H I G H.” Id. at 116. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Awarding Wardship of B.P. to the DOC

[6] B.P. argues the juvenile court erred by ordering DOC placement. “Juvenile courts enjoy wide latitude and significant flexibility in their dealings with juveniles.” B.K. v. State, 235 N.E.3d 142, 145 (Ind. 2024) (citing In re M.T., 928 N.E.2d 266, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). We review a juvenile court's disposition decision for an abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024) (citing K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)). “A court abuses its discretion by misinterpreting the law or ‘if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.’ ” Id. (quoting T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023)). “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)), trans. not sought.

[7] B.P. specifically argues that the State abused its discretion by ordering DOC placement and claims that “the court had less restrictive placement options that would have let B.P. get the help he needed.” Appellant's Br. at 9. The disposition of a delinquent is guided by the following relevant statutory considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the juvenile, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the juvenile, and the freedom and participation of the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. Generally, “commitment to the DOC ‘should be treated as a last resort,’ ” G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 190 (quoting C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)), but “that option may be appropriate when ‘consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child,’ ” id. (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). As this court has previously observed, placement with the DOC is not a penalty—the DOC is a secure environment that can better serve the overall purpose of rehabilitating a juvenile. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App 2002), trans. denied), trans. denied, cert. denied.

[8] B.P. exhibited a consistent pattern of substance abuse and criminal conduct, demonstrating a clear inability to respond to less restrictive placements. During a span of one year, he accumulated three juvenile adjudications: intimidation, criminal trespass, and escape. This escalating pattern of criminal behavior, combined with his substance abuse issues, presented ongoing risks to community safety.

[9] B.P. argues that the juvenile court erred in committing him to DOC because he was “working on relapse prevention and had his mother's support.” Appellant's Br. at 11. However, this argument is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). The record demonstrates that the juvenile court systematically tried less restrictive options before resorting to DOC commitment, following the statutory preference for least restrictive placement. B.P.’s initial probation started with home detention until he committed an act of escape. B.P. was then sent to and successfully completed a residential program at White's Residential Facility. Upon his return to probation supervision, however, B.P. relapsed into substance abuse and began distributing controlled substances to other students at school. Only after the juvenile court exhausted all other options was B.P. sent to DOC.

[10] The juvenile court was in the best position to evaluate B.P.’s progress against his continued violations and escalating behavior, and we cannot say it abused its discretion in determining that B.P.’s pattern of recidivism, including both substance abuse and drug distribution, required the secure environment and extended treatment available through DOC placement. We therefore affirm the juvenile court's decision to commit B.P. to DOC.

[11] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Tavitas concur. Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.