III v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] V.S. III has a history of violent outbursts that has escalated from hitting and throwing things to chasing family members with knives and threatening to cut out their eyes. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging V.S. is a delinquent child for having committed two acts of domestic battery, and V.S. admitted the delinquency allegations. The juvenile court ordered V.S. to be placed with the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). V.S. 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] This case begins not with the criminal conduct underlying V.S.’s delinquency adjudication but with his family's involvement with the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”). V.S. was born on August 27, 2009, and was adjudicated a child in need of services (“CHINS”) on three separate occasions. During the second CHINS case, V.S. was placed with his grandparents, but they were “unable to manage [his] behaviors,” which included attempting to set his room on fire and threatening his siblings with a knife and coat hanger. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 40. During the second and third CHINS cases, V.S. received mental health treatment and, at times, attended residential treatment facilities. V.S. “attended treatment at Harsha, Hendricks, Bloomington Meadows, Options, and Gibault [due to] ongoing concerns that he posed a risk to the safety of the children in the home.” Id. at 41. While at Gibault in 2024, V.S. “engaged in violent behavior such as attacking peers, assaulting staff members, and hurting his mother during a supervised visit.” Id. In August 2024, V.S. was released from Gibault to his father's care. By September, due to V.S. throwing and breaking things at his father's home, his father sent V.S. to live with his mother.

[4] In November 2024, while V.S. was living with his mother, law enforcement officers responded to calls for help at V.S.’s residence because he had chased his brother with a knife and either grabbed or pushed him; just a few days after that incident, officers responded to another call stemming from V.S. biting his sister's arm. The State subsequently filed a delinquency petition alleging V.S. is a delinquent child for having committed two acts of domestic battery, both of which would be Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult ¹ . Before the juvenile court could hold a factfinding hearing on the delinquency petition, law enforcement officers responded to a call alleging V.S. threatened to stab family members with a knife, “touched his sister [ ] with the knife[,] ․ threatened to cut out his sibling's eyes, and threatened to murder the neighbors.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 29.

[5] At the factfinding hearing, V.S. admitted to the domestic battery allegations in the delinquency petition, and the juvenile court immediately proceeded to disposition. V.S.’s father testified that he was willing to take V.S. into his home, and the probation department recommended DOC placement. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court awarded wardship of V.S. to DOC “for [a]n [un]determined period,” Tr. Vol. II at 29, and issued its dispositional order the following day. In the order, the juvenile court found in relevant part as follows:

[V.S.] has a lengthy history of contact with [DCS] ․ which include[s] several failed placement[ ] alternatives․ Both DCS and the Probation Office have attempted less restrictive placement options, including change of custody and community treatment, to control [V.S.’s] behavior. While in placement, [V.S.’s] violent outbursts have continued, including violence to staff and other children in the placements. Since [V.S.’s] contacts began with DCS and now Probation, his behavior has grown increasingly violent and now escalated to involving deadly weapons in his violence․ [V.S.] has attended treatment at Harsha, Hendricks, Bloomington Meadows, Options, and Gibault, all of which have been unsuccessful in protecting the community from his violent outbursts or rehabilitat[ing] him to manage his anger and violence. The Court finds that placement in a residential treatment facility is not appropriate[,] it is currently taking up to six (6) months to locate placement[,] and [V.S.] needs placement and services now.

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 45–46. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

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

[6] V.S. 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 the juvenile court's disposition for 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] “The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the juvenile court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.” A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). When considering an appropriate disposition, if it can be consistent with safety of the community and the best interest of the child, juvenile courts must consider (1) the least restrictive setting that is close to the parents’ home, (2) attempting to minimally interfere with family autonomy, (3) attempting to not disrupt family life, (4) imposing the least restraint on the child, and (5) providing reasonable opportunities for participation of the child's family. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. “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).

[8] V.S. relies on E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), to argue that his placement with DOC “is punitive in nature rather than rehabilitative because his father was willing to provide a structured placement for him,” Appellant's Br. at 13. In E.H., the juvenile court adjudicated E.H. a delinquent for committing theft and ordered him to be placed in DOC for one year. E.H., 764 N.E.2d at 683. This court vacated the DOC placement because E.H. was making progress prior to the disposition and “there [was] no evidence in the record ․ that E.H. [was] a threat to the community.” Id. at 686. V.S.’s reliance on E.H. is misplaced. Here, the juvenile court specifically found that V.S. had “several failed placements” and that his “violent outbursts have continued ․ [and] grown increasingly violent and now escalated to involving deadly weapons.” Appellant's App Vol. II at 45. V.S. does not claim he is not violent; rather, he claims that because his “father has no other children in his house ․ his anger and aggression issues will not be an issue.” Appellant's Br. at 15. This is simply a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do. See A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). V.S. exhibited a continued inability to respond to less restrictive placements throughout the CHINS cases, and he has routinely failed to sufficiently address his violent behavior—including after his arrest and the filing of the delinquency petition in this case. Based on the foregoing, the evidence supports the juvenile court's conclusion that DOC placement was consistent with the safety of the community and in V.S.’s best interest, so the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering V.S. to be placed with DOC.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also alleged that V.S. had committed four counts of intimidation as Level 5 felonies, but it dropped the intimidation allegations during the factfinding hearing.

Felix, Judge.

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