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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] K.B. appeals the juvenile court's grant of wardship over him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”) after K.B. repeatedly violated the conditions of less-restrictive placements. K.B. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the DOC.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In June 2022, the State arrested K.B. on an allegation of arson, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, in Case Number 71J01-2207-JD-251. K.B. admitted to having committed criminal mischief, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and the juvenile court adjudicated K.B. to be a delinquent. The court then placed K.B. on probation.

[4] In October, the State filed a notice of probation violation on the ground that K.B. had, among other alleged violations, tested positive for marijuana. After a hearing, the court found that the State had proven its allegation by a preponderance of the evidence and modified K.B.’s placement to home detention for thirty days.

[5] In February 2023, the State filed a new notice of probation violation and again alleged that K.B. had tested positive for marijuana. The court ordered K.B. to remain on the terms and conditions of his existing probation. In March, the State filed multiple notices of probation violations relating to, among other things, K.B. fighting at school, possessing weapons, and using marijuana. After the court again continued K.B.’s probation, in May the State filed several new notices of probation violations relating to drug use and threats. In June, the court ordered K.B. to serve ninety days home detention.

[6] More notices of violations followed in July 2023, including allegations that K.B. had tampered with his GPS monitoring device and attempted to break into vehicles. Following a hearing on those allegations, the court granted wardship over K.B. to the DOC, to be followed by an additional term of probation. After being released to the additional term of probation, the State filed new notices of violations relating to drug use and leaving home without permission. The court continued K.B. on probation but with additional conditions. The State filed yet another notice of violation in October 2024, which resulted in the court continuing K.B. on probation along with a period of home detention.

[7] Meanwhile, in September 2023, the State alleged K.B. to be a delinquent child in Case Number 71J01-2309-JD-250 for having committed two acts of escape, Level 6 felonies if committed by an adult, based on his July 2023 tampering with his GPS monitoring device. The court adjudicated K.B. to be a delinquent for those acts and ordered him to serve “strict and indefinite probation” along with a ninety-day period of home detention. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 157. Thereafter, the State filed additional notices of probation violations alleging K.B. to have committed more offenses. In response, the court ordered K.B. to serve a period of time in the Department of Correction followed by home detention. After his release to home detention, more notices of violations followed, including allegations relating to drug use and weapons.

[8] In August 2024, the State filed a third delinquency petition against K.B. in Case Number 71J01-2407-JD-251 for having committed domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The court adjudicated K.B. to be a delinquent for that offense and again ordered him to strict and indefinite probation.

[9] In early January 2025, the State filed yet another notice of violation in all three case numbers in which the State alleged that K.B. had continued to use drugs and to leave his home without permission. Following a hearing, the court granted wardship over K.B. to the DOC.

[10] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] On appeal, K.B. asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the DOC. The “juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Thus, we will reverse the court's choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child only for an abuse of discretion. Id. The “court's discretion is subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition.” Id. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is “against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Id.

[12] The choice of an appropriate juvenile disposition is governed by Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (2024), which provides as follows:

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 further provides that “placement in the least restrictive setting is required only ‘[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.’ ” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). “Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[13] The juvenile court granted wardship over K.B. to the DOC based on K.B.’s numerous opportunities with less-restrictive placements and his continued delinquent behavior notwithstanding those placements. For the reasons explained above, the juvenile court's decision was well within the facts and circumstances before it. See, e.g., M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459 (recognizing that continued delinquent behavior after a juvenile becomes involved with the justice system may support granting wardship to the DOC). The court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it granted wardship over K.B. to the DOC.

[14] Still, K.B. argues on appeal that there is evidence in the record to support a less-restrictive placement. But K.B.’s argument simply asks our Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The juvenile court's judgment is affirmed.

[15] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.