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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] A.B. appeals his placement with the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) following his admission to two counts of child exploitation,¹ which would be Level 4 felonies if committed by an adult, and two counts of possession of child pornography,² which would be Level 5 felonies if committed by an adult. A.B. raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate as whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied A.B.’s motion to correct error. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Between May 2023 and April 2024, fifteen-year-old ³ A.B. accessed, viewed, and downloaded videos of children under the age of twelve years old engaged in sexual acts. On March 11, 2024, Master Detective Robert Wendling (“Detective Wendling”) with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) received a CyberTip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”). Detective Wendling learned that the chat application, Discord, made a NCMEC tip on October 4, 2023, reporting the uploading of two files of purported child pornography by a Discord user. Detective Wendling obtained a search warrant for the content of the Discord account, which was subsequently linked to A.B. Detective Wendling confirmed that two video files containing child pornography were shared by A.B. to other Discord users in group messages, and the account contained additional video files of child pornography. The data from A.B.’s account also revealed several conversations where A.B. expressed interest in rape-themed videos and child pornography. A.B. also sent messages fantasizing about abusing children, including graphic descriptions of sexually abusing specific children in his neighborhood. A search warrant was obtained for A.B.’s home, and his electronic devices. A.B. confirmed that the Discord account belonged to him and acknowledged having sent files of child pornography involving young victims to others via Discord and downloading the files to his digital devices. A.B. was arrested, and the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging A.B. committed six counts of what would be Level 4 felony child exploitation if committed by an adult and six counts of what would be Level 5 felony possession of child pornography if committed by an adult.

[3] A.B. entered into an admission agreement with the State, whereunder (1) A.B. would admit to two counts of child exploitation, which would each be a Level 4 felony if committed by an adult, as well as two counts of possession of child pornography, which would each be a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult, and (2) the State would seek dismissal of the remaining counts. The juvenile court took the agreement under advisement and ordered a psychosexual evaluation and that A.B. remain in custody pending disposition.

[4] On August 7, 2024, a dispositional hearing was held. The juvenile court considered the predisposition report, A.B.’s psychosexual evaluation, and the testimony from several witnesses. Dr. Jim Dalton (“Dr. Dalton”) completed A.B.’s psychosexual evaluation and testified at the hearing. For his evaluation, Dr. Dalton reviewed the provider's referral, the probable cause affidavit, and the preliminary inquiry report and interviewed A.B. Dr. Dalton found that A.B. rated “very high” for sexual behavior risk and that A.B.’s risk factor on the internet was a “super high risk.” Tr. Vol. II p. 47. Dr. Dalton clarified that A.B.’s risk level depends on the situation and that, on the internet, A.B.’s risk was super high, while in-person, around kids similarly aged to A.B., there was not much risk of harm. Dr. Dalton determined that for in-person risk factors, safety planning would have to be in place, and he did not recommend that A.B. be permitted around children younger than thirteen years old due to A.B.’s unusual thinking and urges.

[5] Dr. Dalton recommended psychiatric stabilization and medication for A.B. For A.B.’s clinical treatment, Dr. Dalton suggested residential treatment at the Safe Response youth facility. Dr. Dalton believed that Safe Response would be the best placement for A.B., as they would be able to provide all of the recommended treatment, and Dr. Dalton could assist with A.B.’s treatment programming if Safe Response needed his help.

[6] Safe Response houses approximately nine to ten residents ranging from ages sixteen to twenty. Although Safe Response's facility is not locked, they do provide twenty-four-hour surveillance and direct supervision of all electronic devices, which are to be used for school purposes only. The residents are not permitted to have electronics during their stay, except for computers issued for school purposes. The program director of Safe Response testified that they continuously consult with the Advocacy and Training Alliance (“ATA”), which Dr. Dalton is a co-founder of, on the development of the program and best training practices to meet the needs of patients. Safe Response provides updates regarding treatment to the court and probation as frequently as ordered.

[7] The Marion Superior Court Probation Department (“Probation”) recommended residential placement in a group home similar to Safe Response based on Dr. Dalton's report and recommendations. The State requested placement at the DOC, recommending that A.B. participate in the DOC's treatment program for juvenile sex offenders. A.B. requested to return home or to a group home setting.

[8] The juvenile court awarded wardship of A.B. to the DOC, finding that there was no less restrictive or more appropriate placement available that was consistent with A.B.’s best interest and the safety of the community. The juvenile court explained that the recommendations for placement in an unsecured group home, such as Safe Response, which is located in a residential neighborhood close to schools, homes, and churches, were inconsistent with the evidence the court received. Additionally, the juvenile court expressed concern that some of the statements made by A.B. via Discord were violent, angry, and depraved, and that Dr. Dalton's recommendation may have been made without the benefit of all of A.B.’s statements and actions. The juvenile court found that, based upon the risk A.B. posed to other children within an unsecured group home setting or within the community, placement in an unsecured group home located in a residential neighborhood was insufficient. Lastly, the juvenile court noted that Dr. Dalton had a financial interest in Safe Response, which may have undermined his recommendation and thereby the recommendation of Probation.

[9] A.B. filed a timely motion to correct error, claiming that the juvenile court should reconsider its disregard of Dr. Dalton's recommendation because the recommendation was based upon the same records presented at the dispositional hearing and that there was no evidence that Dr. Dalton had a personal financial interest in Safe Response. The juvenile court denied the motion. A.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Generally, the juvenile court has the discretion to grant or deny a motion to correct error, and we reverse the juvenile court's decision only for an abuse of discretion. Matter of K.V., 201 N.E.3d 700, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court's action is “clearly erroneous” and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. J.T. v. State, 111 N.E.3d 1019, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

[11] A.B. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to correct error, challenging the rationale for placing him in the DOC. A.B. argues that, in placing him in the DOC, the juvenile court made two erroneous findings in support of its decision. Specifically, that (1) the psychologist, Probation, and DCS “lacked the additional evidence of [A.B.’s] motives, fantasies, desires, and plans when recommending lower security options” making “the recommendations appear ․ to have been made without knowing exactly what [A.B.] said and d[id]” and (2) the court had concerns that Dr. Dalton recommended Safe Response because it believed Dr. Dalton had a “financial interest in those services.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 17; Tr. Vol. II pp. 140, 142. A.B. asserts that these erroneous findings caused the juvenile court to improperly disregard Dr. Dalton's recommendation for placement. A.B. ultimately asks us to accept his alternative characterization of Dr. Dalton's testimony and to conclude that the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him in the DOC.

[12] In denying A.B.’s motion to correct error, the juvenile court stated: “While the Court disagrees with [A.B.’s] characterization of Dr. Dalton's testimony and other assertions of fact, even if they were to be taken as true[,] the Court remains convinced that commitment to DOC and treatment through its programs is the most appropriate disposition,” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 15. We also conclude that the juvenile court's decision to commit A.B. to the DOC was supported by the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion, even if we were to disregard the findings A.B. claims to be erroneous. Therefore, we proceed assuming, without deciding, that A.B.’s assertions regarding the juvenile court's findings were true.

[13] “A juvenile court is accorded ‘wide latitude’ and ‘great flexibility’ in its dealings with juveniles.” J.T., 111 N.E.3d at 1026 (citing J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will only be reversed if there has been an abuse of discretion. Id. “The juvenile court's discretion in determining a disposition is subject to statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least-harsh disposition.” Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court's action is “clearly erroneous” and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

[14] The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation rather than punishment. Id. Juvenile courts have a variety of placement choices for juveniles who have delinquency problems, none of which are considered sentences. Id. Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 provides that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that is in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available.” “[T]he statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29 (citing K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). The law requires only that the disposition selected be the least restrictive disposition that is “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.T., 111 N.E.3d at 1026.

[15] A.B. contends that placement in the DOC is not consistent with the policy of this state, as this was his first delinquency adjudication. A.B. further contends that commitment to the DOC is not necessary to ensure the safety of the community as his psychosexual evaluation indicated that his risk of hands-on harm is low, and he is at low risk to reoffend. A.B. relies on R.A. v. State, where this court found that the DOC was not the least restrictive placement when the delinquent child had no prior contacts with the juvenile justice system. 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[16] However, the circumstances in the present case are different than in R.A. There, the court reversed the juvenile court's commitment of the child to the DOC where the child engaged in a single incident of indecent exposure, exposing his genitals to a classmate. Id. at 1291–92. The court reversed the juvenile court's commitment of R.A. to the DOC because the delinquent conduct of public indecency was isolated, and there was no indication R.A. posed a serious risk of harm to the community. Id. Here, A.B. engaged in repetitive and serious misconduct by using Discord to share numerous child pornography files and by expressing violent desires of sexual fantasies regarding children in his neighborhood. Furthermore, Dr. Dalton's evaluation indicated that, although A.B. may be low-risk of in-person harm towards kids in his similar age group, there must be safety plans put in place, and A.B. should not be left alone with anyone under the age of thirteen due to A.B.’s “unusual thinking and unusual urges that he's confused about and still is unsettled with.” Tr. Vol. II p. 48. The nature of A.B.’s offenses and the content of his messages on Discord created a potential danger to others he may interact with in a residential setting or in the community.

[17] In this case, the least restrictive disposition available to A.B., that was consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, was placement in the DOC. At the time of the disposition, A.B. was sixteen years old, and his behaviors had been going on since he was fifteen years old. Although this was A.B.’s first involvement with the juvenile system, and he was found to be at low risk to reoffend, A.B.’s past conduct included expressions of desire to engage in future maladaptive sexual behaviors with members of the community. The juvenile court reasoned that due to A.B.’s violent comments and sexual fantasies, placement in an unsecured facility located in a residential neighborhood would pose a significant risk to the safety of the community. The juvenile court considered Dr. Dalton's recommendations but ultimately concluded that the DOC was the least restrictive placement option available. The DOC was able to keep A.B. safe while providing him the sex offender and mental health treatments he needed and providing the necessary degree of security for those residing with A.B. and in the community. The trial court's decision to give greater weight to the nature of A.B.’s offense and his statements indicating a desire to sexually abuse children in his neighborhood is supported by the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing and is not clearly erroneous. We, therefore, conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing A.B. to the DOC and in denying the motion to correct error.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(b)(1), (c)(1).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-4(d)(1), (e)(1).

3.   A.B. was between fifteen to sixteen years old at the time of the delinquent conduct and sixteen years old at the time of the dispositional hearing.

Foley, Judge.

Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.