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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] T.K. appeals his placement in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) following his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing the status offense of leaving home without permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian ¹ and for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug,² Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury,³ Class A misdemeanor domestic battery,⁴ and Class C misdemeanor illegal possession of an alcoholic beverage.⁵ T.K. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it placed him in DOC because there were less restrictive placements available. In light of T.K.’s extensive history of placements and repeated adjudications as a delinquent, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 16, 2024, T.K., a student at East Noble High School in Kendallville, Indiana, approached a group of students, “asked them ․ if they had any money” and offered to sell them Percocet. (App. Vol. II at 19.) The students told T.K. that they did not, and shortly thereafter they told the school's assistant principal about what happened. The students identified T.K. as the student who offered to sell them Percocet. The assistant principal located T.K. and found four white pills in his backpack. T.K. admitted he was trying to sell Percocet.

[3] The assistant principal contacted the School Resource Officer, Kendallville Police Department (“KPD”) Officer Justin Beall, who took statements from T.K., the involved students, and the assistant principal. Officer Beall “enter[ed] the pill's [sic] descriptors into Drugs.com[.] [T]he website identified the pills as Acetaminophen and Oxycodone Hydrochloride[.]”⁶ (Id.) Officer Beall took the pills to KPD headquarters as evidence, and T.K. was released to his parents. On October 30, 2024, the State filed a petition under case number 47D01-2410-JD-49 (“JD-49”) alleging that T.K. was a juvenile delinquent for committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug.

[4] On November 17, 2024, T.K. ran away from home and returned the same day. On November 18, 2024, T.K. was at home with his parents, Jeanie and Jeffrey Kunce. Jeanie went into T.K.’s room and found three bottles of alcohol in his backpack. Jeanie gave the backpack to Jeffrey, who confronted T.K. about its contents. T.K. began shoving Jeffrey, so Jeanie called 911.

[5] KPD Sergeant Matthew Gillison and KPD Officer Shane Hurt arrived on the scene. Officer Hurt stayed with T.K. while Sergeant Gillison interviewed Jeffrey and Jeanie. Jeffrey told Sergeant Gillison that T.K. “was mad about getting caught” with the alcohol and pushed Jeanie and Jeffrey in an attempt to leave the house before police arrived. (Id. at 99.) Jeffrey also told Sergeant Gillison “that his hand ‘hurt like hell’ and [he] hoped his finger wasn't broken.” (Id.) Sergeant Gillison called T.K.’s probation officer, Officer Samantha Hammond, who indicated there was a bed for T.K. at the Allen County Juvenile Center (“ACJC”). Officer Hurt arrested T.K. and transported him to the ACJC.

[6] On December 2, 2024, the State filed a petition under case number 47D01-2411-JD-52 (“JD-52”) alleging T.K. was a juvenile delinquent because he committed the status offense of leaving home without permission as well as acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class C misdemeanor illegal possession of an alcoholic beverage.

[7] On December 19, 2024, T.K. appeared before the trial court and admitted the allegations in JD-49 and JD-52. The trial court moved on to testimony and argument regarding T.K.’s placement. The State presented its predispositional report, which outlined T.K.’s history of adjudications as a juvenile delinquent as well as his past placements therefor. The report explained T.K. had been adjudicated a delinquent several times since 2022 and had been in placements ranging from inpatient psychiatric care and substance abuse treatment to DOC. The court heard testimony from T.K., his probation officer, and his parents, and then the court ordered T.K. placed in DOC. The trial court indicated it would watch the notices of T.K.’s progress in DOC and would consider putting him on probation with “more supervision for [him] than [he had] the first time [he] came out of [DOC].” (Tr. Vol. II at 20.)

Discussion and Decision

[8] T.K. appeals his placement in 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. R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). 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 court system.” Id. (quoting In re K.G., 808 NE.2d 631, 634 (Ind. 2004)). Accordingly, juvenile courts have “wide latitude and great flexibility” in fashioning dispositions for delinquents, and 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 trial court or against “the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn” from those facts and circumstances. Id.

[9] Our legislature also delineated several factors for trial courts to consider in making such decisions:

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.

[10] T.K. contends the trial court abused its discretion when it placed him in DOC because it had not “exhausted every option” for a less restrictive placement. (Br. of Appellant at 14.) He points to Probation Officer Hammond's testimony that she had secured him a place at Pierceton Woods, which would provide him with substance abuse treatment, as well as behavioral and emotional regulation therapy. However, T.K.’s argument ignores the fact that he has not benefited from multiple less restrictive placements over the past three years and that he has reoffended shortly after his release from each placement, including DOC.

[11] On April 14, 2022, the trial court adjudicated T.K. as a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would have been Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and Level 6 felony theft.⁷ For that adjudication, T.K. was admitted to Parkview Behavioral Health. While there, T.K. was diagnosed with marijuana use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and conduct disorder, and doctors prescribed Inderal, Trazadone, and Abilify. T.K. was released on probation in August 2022 and ordered to attend individual and family therapy.

[12] On March 3, 2023, the trial court adjudicated T.K. as a juvenile delinquent for committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would have been Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. After that adjudication, T.K. was placed at the Gateway Woods Residential Treatment program. He was discharged from the program in November 2023.

[13] In January 2024, T.K. completed a “Brain Map” and a diagnostic evaluation through Lutherwood Residential. (Id. at 145.) Based thereon, T.K. was diagnosed with “ADHD, Adjustment Disorder Diagnosis, Social Anxiety Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Opiate Use Disorder.” (Id.) In February 2024, the trial court changed T.K.’s placement to DOC. While in DOC, T.K. completed several programs such as the “Prison Yoga Project, TRE program, and the W.A.I.T. PROGRAM.”⁸ (Id.) (emphasis in original). He was released on August 19, 2024. In September 2024 and November 2024, T.K. engaged in the activities that led to his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent in the case before us.

[14] At T.K.’s dispositional hearing, Probation Officer Hammond testified at length regarding T.K.’s history of adjudications as a juvenile delinquent and the placements stemming therefrom. She noted his substance abuse issues and her concerns regarding them, specifically that T.K. would overdose. Regarding T.K.’s placement, Probation Officer Hammond told the trial court:

We've tried Gateway, we've tried DOC, we've done brain mapping, we've done FCT,[9] we've exhausted everything for this child. He went to DOC, and in three weeks, he gets out and gets a new charge. Similar, similar problem, your Honor. And I don't necessarily know if another Residential program is what [T.K.] needs. I don't know if DOC is what he needs. What I do know ․ is [that] he needs intensive substance use [treatment]. But he needs to be willing to change and take all the information in and be willing to work on himself. And I don't know if he's ready. I don't know if he's ready or not. But I know that I'm going to continue to support him and try to find different ideas and ways to get him to understand that his life matters. And because of that, your Honor, I have reached out to multiple different Residentials. But unfortunately, multiple Residentials denied him because of his past behavior at Residentials. The one that was willing to give him an opportunity was Pierceton Woods in their SABER[10] program, your Honor, and they're willing to pick him up tomorrow at 10 o'clock, if the Court so decides. But I think a real question is ․ do we continue trying to give him substance use treatment if he's not ready? I would like him to at least have that opportunity to try to see if maybe he's matured a little bit within the last couple of months. I don't know. But also knowing that if he doesn't do well at Pierceton Woods, just like Gateway, he'll end up in DOC, which is [sic] clearly didn't help him either, your Honor.

(Tr. Vol. II at 14) (footnote added). After additional testimony from T.K. and his parents, as well as argument from counsel, the trial court placed T.K. in DOC. The court explained T.K.’s “choices ․ created a situation where all of us had to be here today” and T.K.’s “actions have created no other choice as far as the Court's concerned.” (Id. at 19-20.)

[15] While we recognize, based on Probation Officer Hammond's testimony and the State's predispositional report, that T.K. has mental health and substance abuse issues, the record also indicates he has been unwilling to address those issues in past psychiatric and substance abuse treatment residential placements. T.K. spent six months in DOC in 2024, and less than one month after his release, he tried to sell narcotics to students at his high school, which would be a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. Based thereon, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed T.K. in DOC. See M.M. v. State, 189 N.E.3d 1163, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by granting wardship to DOC when “numerous and intensive efforts and lesser restrictive placements” had failed).

Conclusion

[16] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed T.K. in DOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 31-37-2-2.

2.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1)(b)(3).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1).

5.   Ind. Code § 7.1-5-7-7(a)(1).

6.   At the dispositional hearing, the trial court noted “oxycodone hydrochloride” is “commonly known as Percocet[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 4.) The trial court also noted Percocet is a narcotic drug that is unlawful to possess without a prescription.

7.   Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(A).

8.   The record does not indicate what the TRE program and the W.A.I.T. PROGRAM are.

9.   It is unclear from the record what FCT stands for.

10.   SABER stands for “Substance Abuse, Behavioral, and Emotional Regulation ․.” (Br. of Appellant at 14.)

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.