E.G., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] E.G. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing acts that would be auto theft, a Level 6 felony, and leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. E.G. was placed in secure detention followed by probation. Following a petition by the State, the juvenile court determined that E.G. violated the terms of his probation, and the juvenile court modified the dispositional order to place E.G. under the wardship of the Department of Correction (“DOC”). E.G. appeals and argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by making him a ward of the DOC. Given E.G.’s repeated probation violations and extensive history of delinquent behavior, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by making him a ward of the DOC. We, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] E.G. raises one issue, which we restate as whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place E.G. under the wardship of the DOC.

Facts

[3] On July 2, 2022, then eleven-year-old E.G. ran away from home, was arrested by law enforcement officers, and was transported to the Youth Services Center (“the Center”). The next day, E.G. absconded from the Center, and a runaway report was filed. Three days later, E.G. was arrested and returned to the Center. On July 17, 2022, E.G. stole a vehicle and led law enforcement on a high-speed chase through a residential area, during which he struck an unoccupied vehicle. He eventually stopped, exited the vehicle, and attempted to flee on foot despite officers ordering him to stop. E.G. was arrested, transported to the Allen County Juvenile Center, and then returned to the Center.

[4] The State filed a petition alleging that E.G. was delinquent for committing acts that would be the following if committed by an adult: Count I, auto theft, a Level 6 felony; Count II, resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor; Count III, leaving the scene of an accident, a Class B misdemeanor; Count IV, leaving home without the permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian, a status offense; and Count V, resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony.

[5] On August 18, 2022, E.G. admitted to Count I, auto theft, and Count III, leaving the scene of an accident, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State in which Counts II, IV, and V were dismissed. The juvenile court adjudicated E.G. a delinquent child, and at the dispositional hearing on September 13, 2022, the juvenile court ordered E.G. to serve thirty days at the Allen County Juvenile Center, with release set for October 12, and probation to follow.

[6] On October 12, 2022, the same day as E.G.’s release, his probation officer received a tamper alert from E.G.’s electronic monitor, indicating the device had been removed. During a home visit, the officer found the monitor covered in baby oil and lotion, along with a large kitchen knife, but could not locate E.G. The next day, E.G. was arrested following another police chase and returned to the Allen County Juvenile Center.¹

[7] At a modification hearing on October 25, 2022, E.G. admitted that he violated the terms of the dispositional order by committing, escape, a Level 6 felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. On November 23, 2022, the juvenile court, citing E.G.’s probation violations and “extensive history of incorrigible behavior,” ordered residential placement at Transitions Academy. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 113. On January 24, 2024, at a placement review hearing, the juvenile court ordered E.G.’s release to his mother's custody under formal probation supervision.

[8] On May 28, 2024, the Probation Department requested a warrant for E.G.’s arrest due to his failure to follow parental directives, attend school full-time, and participate in home-based services. The juvenile court found probable cause and issued a bench warrant for E.G.’s arrest, but E.G. was not located until June 4, 2024. On that day, officers found E.G. driving a vehicle without a license plate, carrying eight to ten other juveniles. E.G. fled at a high speed, disregarded traffic signs and police lights, abandoned the vehicle, and then fled on foot. The next day, E.G. was arrested and transported to the Allen County Juvenile Center.²

[9] A petition to modify the dispositional decree was filed, and the matter was set for hearing on June 18, 2024. E.G. admitted to violating the dispositional order by failing to obey lawful requests from his parent. On July 16, 2024, the juvenile court issued a modified dispositional order, committing E.G. to the Allen County Juvenile Center for ninety days, with release set for October 13, 2024.

[10] On October 2, 2024, the Probation Department filed an affidavit alleging that E.G. violated the Juvenile Center's rules. At the hearing on October 16, 2024, E.G. admitted he violated the terms of his probation by failing to follow the rules of the Allen County Juvenile Center. A dispositional hearing was originally scheduled for November 14, 2024, but was continued to December 17, 2024, to allow time to explore placement options. In the interim, on November 22, 2024, E.G. received an additional disciplinary report from the Allen County Juvenile Center for an incident that involved possession of contraband, repeated rule violations, and property damage.

[11] On December 17, 2024, the State informed the juvenile court that no placement facility in Indiana would accept the now fourteen-year-old E.G. due to his extensive history of aggression, delinquent behavior, and unsuccessful prior placements. Although E.G. was accepted at Bashor Children's Home, no openings were available until late January or February 2025. The probation department therefore recommended that E.G. be made a ward of the DOC because of his numerous cases, serious charges, lack of remorse, and apparent unwillingness to change.

[12] In consideration of E.G.’s continued incorrigible behaviors, a recent battery offense, and sixteen disciplinary reports while detained at the Allen County Juvenile Center, the juvenile court entered a modification order awarding wardship of E.G. to the DOC for placement in a correctional facility for children. E.G. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[13] E.G. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place him under the wardship of the DOC based on his probation violations. “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). We review a juvenile court's disposition of a delinquent child for an abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). The juvenile court abuses its discretion if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or by misinterpreting the law. Id. “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[14] Juvenile courts have “a myriad of dispositional alternatives to fit the unique and varying circumstances of each child's problems.” R.J.G. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. 2009). The dispositional decree should prioritize rehabilitation over punishment. Id. Regarding the selection of an appropriate disposition, Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 provides:

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.

After entering a dispositional order, a juvenile court may amend its order pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-37-22-1.

II. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion

[15] E.G. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by modifying the dispositional order to place him under the wardship of the DOC. Considering the facts and circumstances before the juvenile court, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.

[16] Within hours of his release from the Allen County Juvenile Center after serving thirty days in detention, E.G. violated the conditions of his probation by cutting off his ankle monitor, running away from home, stealing a vehicle, striking another car, and fleeing from law enforcement. E.G. was then placed in Transitions Academy. Upon his release several months later, E.G. again fled from law enforcement in a high-speed chase and was placed back in secure detention. His incorrigible behaviors continued. Left with few options, the juvenile court awarded wardship of E.G. to the DOC.

[17] Rather than complying with the terms of his probation and taking advantage of the leniency afforded to him, E.G. has engaged in further delinquent behavior that demonstrated a continued disregard for authority. E.G. contends that the juvenile court should have ordered a less restrictive placement, but the record reflects that the juvenile court had already tried less restrictive alternatives—including probation, electronic monitoring, and residential placement—all of which E.G. failed to complete successfully. Furthermore, the State presented evidence that Bashor Children's Home was the only facility in Indiana that was willing to accept E.G., given his extensive delinquent history and prior unsuccessful placements; however, placement in that facility was not immediately available. Both the juvenile court and E.G.’s mother expressed concern about E.G.’s safety and welfare.

[18] The juvenile court found that returning E.G. to probation and his mother's custody was not in his best interests, as he had repeatedly absconded, violated probation, failed to comply with home-based services, and continued engaging in delinquent behavior while under her supervision. Given the failed lesser restrictive alternatives and the absence of an opening at an alternative residential facility, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a more secure and structured placement was necessary to serve E.G.’s best interests and to protect community safety.

Conclusion

[19] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by awarding wardship of E.G. to the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   E.G. was alleged to be delinquent for committing acts that would be escape, a Level 6 felony; resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor; and leaving home without permission. He later admitted to committing acts that would be escape and resisting law enforcement, and the State dismissed the count of leaving home without permission.

2.   The State alleged that E.G. was a delinquent child for committing acts that would be resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. E.G. admitted to resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony, and the misdemeanor charge was dismissed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.