J.W., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.W. appeals the juvenile court's order committing him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 15, 2023, the State filed a petition alleging J.W. was a delinquent for committing acts which would constitute intimidation and domestic battery as class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. The State also alleged that J.W. habitually disobeyed the reasonable and lawful commands of his parent, guardian, or custodian, and he needed care, treatment, or rehabilitation that he would not receive without the coercive intervention of the court.

[3] On September 26, 2023, the parties filed a “Juvenile Admission & Plea Agreement” in which J.W. admitted to the allegations of intimidation, domestic battery, and habitual disobedience. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 39. On December 13, 2023, the court entered an order placing J.W. in “residential placement at Gibault Children's Services – Child and Adolescent Residential Environment (CARE).” Id. at 136.

[4] On August 7, 2024, the State filed a Verified Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree alleging that the “terms of probation were violated” on July 26 through 30, 2024, when J.W. left residential placement and was arrested in Vigo County. Id. at 246.

[5] On October 22, 2024, the parties filed a Juvenile Admission Form which stated: “Juvenile admits & agrees to: Blind Plea.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 94. On October 23, 2024, the court held a hearing at which J.W. admitted he had been “placed on probation” and violated “the terms of [his] probation.” Transcript Volume II at 7. The prosecutor asked J.W. if he was “at Duvault,” and J.W. answered affirmatively. Id. When asked if it was fair to say that “they sent [him] home because [he] was violating the rules on a regular basis,” J.W. answered affirmatively. Id. The court accepted J.W.’s admission to violating probation.

[6] On November 6, 2024, the State filed a Predispositional Report. On November 13, 2024, the court held a dispositional hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the court indicated that it had reviewed the psychological evaluation report filed on November 12th as well as the Predispositional Report filed on November 6th. The State presented the testimony of Probation Officer Rachel Patterson and J.W.’s mother.

[7] Probation Officer Patterson testified that J.W. was placed at Southwest but “[t]hey did not feel that he was making the progress he needed at the time and that a different placement was recommended.” Id. at 12. When asked if J.W. had “problems” with each of his stays “between the Youth Shelter stays here in Clark County and at Floyd,” she answered affirmatively. Id. She testified that “[f]rom the Clark County Youth Shelter he was arrested for escape and criminal mischief and then he was also, he also eloped from Gibault on multiple occasions.” Id. at 12-13. She recommended that J.W. be placed at the DOC. On redirect examination, she indicated that “[w]e've had in home services multiple times before and [J.W.] has refused to (inaudible).” Id. at 17. When asked if “going home with mother is not a good option at all at this time,” she answered, “I do not believe it would be safe for either party.” Id. at 18.

[8] J.W.’s mother confirmed that Probation Officer Patterson's testimony was “all correct.” Id. When asked “to confirm or disagree with [Probation Officer Patterson] that it is not an option for [J.W.] to come home with [her] at this time,” she answered, “I think it was, I think there are safety concerns.” Id. at 18-19. She indicated that her opinion was based on “prior domestic batteries, intimidation, threats within the home,” and the fact that J.W. had never been able to complete the programs to which he had been previously sent. Id. at 19. She indicated that she wished she could bring J.W. home but did not believe it “would be good for him or for [her] family.” Id.

[9] J.W. testified that he had learned “a lot of things” from his prior history. Id. at 22. He also stated that he believed it would be best for him to return home. On cross-examination, J.W. acknowledged that he failed at the program at Southwest and he was unsuccessful at Gibault.

[10] The court stated:

Part of this is difficult because we have seen you the last couple of years and you've changed. You've grown a little bit. You've acknowledged that you understand some of your behavior and how that [a]ffects the people around you. The concern I have is that at home, that behavior continues. Your behavior is somewhat better when you're in a structured environment where you have some authority figures who are requiring you to do certain things. Mom has tried. Mom has been there and will continue to be there for you but she herself has expressed some safety concerns and some issues that she's afraid will occur again if you come home without the necessary treatment behind you. Alright? We've tried a couple of different residential placements, tried to get that treatment in place they haven't been successful as you yourself have acknowledged. The [DOC] is not a place where we like to send kids if we don't have to. But when we run out of services and as Ms. Patterson testified, she checked 5 other services that were available but again, because of your prior history, because of the escape, those kinds of things, all 5 of those placements denied your admission. The [DOC] has various programs[,] they have education, they have mental health counseling, they have substance abuse counseling[,] they have lots of different things that they can offer you.

Id. at 27-29.

[11] On November 13, 2024, the court entered a Dispositional Order in which it stated that it “reviewed and considered” certain evidence including “[t]he Predispositional Report.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 2. The court awarded wardship of J.W. to the DOC. On December 9, 2024, J.S. filed a notice of appeal.

[12] On March 17, 2025, the State filed a Verified Motion to Remand for the juvenile court to enter further findings. The State referenced J.W.’s brief in which he argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him in the DOC without including the necessary specific findings required by Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a) as interpreted by G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184 (Ind. 2024). On March 31, 2025, this Court entered an order granting the State's motion.

[13] In April 2025, the juvenile court entered an Amended Dispositional Order in which the court stated:

The juvenile has a prior history of delinquent adjudications as follows:

10C04-2210-JD-007 F6 Intimidation, Habitual Disobedience 10C04-2205-JD-095 MB Criminal Mischief, MB Disorderly Conduct

10C04-2208-JD-138 F5 Escape, MB Criminal Mischief, Habitual Disobedience

The Court has reviewed and considered the following:

• Evidence, statements, and recommendations of the parties, including the juvenile.

• The Pre-dispositional Report noting statements therein are adopted and incorporated as findings upon the record.

• The needs of the juvenile for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement.

• The need for participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the plan of care for the juvenile[.]

• Efforts made to prevent the juvenile's removal from or to reunite the juvenile with the parent, guardian, or custodian.

• The family services that were offered and provided to the juvenile and the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian.

• The alternatives for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the juvenile.

• The necessity, nature, and extent of the participation by a parent, guardian, or custodian in the program of care, treatment, or rehabilitation of the juvenile.

• The financial responsibility of the parent or guardian of the estate for services provided for the parent, guardian, or juvenile.

• The services that should be ordered for the parent, guardian, or custodian, including those recommended in any Petition for Parental Participation.

• Any Child Support Obligation Worksheet filed.

• The ability of the parent, guardian, or custodian(s) to participate in and/or be financially responsible for services and/or placement.

• Any information provided regarding eligibility for assistance under Title IV-E.

• Any statement from the Department of Child Service[s] (DCS).

• The best interests and safety of the juvenile and the community.

• Whether the juvenile is a dual status child under IC 31-41.

• Other relevant factors.

Child has/has not been identified as a dual status child.

The Court now approves, modifies, or rejects the dispositional recommendations submitted in the Pre-dispositional Report as follows:

[X] [DOC]

Pursuant to (I.C. 31-37-19-6) (I.C. 31-37-19-9), the Court now awards wardship of the juvenile to the [DOC] for housing in any correctional facility for children.

* * * * *

The Court recommends the following to the [DOC]: indeterminant length of stay.

* * * * *

This disposition is consistent with the safety of the community as well as the best interest and special needs of the juvenile and is the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available close to the parents’ home, least interferes with family's autonomy, is least disruptive of family life, imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the juvenile and the parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian.

Amended Dispositional Order at 1-3. On March 6, 2025, J.W. filed an amended brief with permission of this Court.

Discussion

[14] In his amended brief, J.W. argues that the juvenile court failed to place him in the least restrictive option, which was his home. He contends that, “[w]hile community safety issues exist given his history, the evidence shows that he has changed and matured.” Appellant's Brief at 16. He also argues that the juvenile court failed to enter specific findings of fact. He asserts that the list of certain evidence mentioned by the juvenile court in the Amended Dispositional Order lacked any specific findings. He points out that he is not a dual status Child, no child support obligation worksheets were submitted, and no testimony about Title IV-E eligibility assistance was introduced.

[15] The State argues that the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in placing J.W. at the DOC and that the Amended Dispositional Order complied with Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9 and was “not merely a boilerplate order with no factual findings” because it “adopted the pre-dispositional report as its findings, which report contained facts relevant to all six factors the juvenile court was required to consider.” Appellee's Brief at 13.

[16] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6, which 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” and “close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child”; least interferes with family autonomy; is least disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian. Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available applies only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. 2007) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6). We review the juvenile court's disposition for an abuse of discretion. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[17] By statute, a “juvenile court shall accompany [its] dispositional decree with written findings and conclusions upon the record,” whether in approving, modifying, or rejecting the “dispositional recommendations submitted in the predispositional report.” G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 189 (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a)) (emphasis added in G.W.). “Specific findings include, among other things, (1) the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement needs of the child; (2) the need for participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the plan of care for the child; (3) any services provided to the child; and (4) the ‘court's reasons for the disposition.’ ” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a)). As pointed out by the State, Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(c) provides that “[t]he juvenile court may incorporate a finding or conclusion from a predispositional report as a written finding or conclusion upon the record in the court's dispositional decree.”

[18] The Amended Dispositional Order referenced J.W.’s prior delinquent adjudications and indicated that placement in the DOC was consistent with the safety of the community and J.W.’s best interests. Further, the order stated: “The Court has reviewed and considered the following: ․ The Predispositional Report noting statements therein are adopted and incorporated as findings upon the record.” Amended Dispositional Order at 1. As mentioned above, Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(c) provides that “[t]he juvenile court may incorporate a finding or conclusion from a predispositional report as a written finding or conclusion upon the record in the court's dispositional decree.” The eleven-page Predispositional Report filed on November 6, 2024, indicates that J.W. had been on house arrest between September 12, 2023, and September 13, 2023, placed in a Juvenile Detention Center between September 13, 2023, and December 14, 2023, placed at Gibault Residential between December 14, 2023, and October 9, 2024, and placed in the Juvenile Detention Center since October 9, 2024. The Predispositional Report indicates that J.W.’s mother recommended placement at the DOC because of “significant mental health issues, prior elopements from placement, and multiple service providers being involved with [J.W.] since his adoption in 2019.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 97.

[19] The Predispositional Report details J.W.’s juvenile history which included multiple allegations of delinquent acts and admissions of intimidation against his mother and habitual disobedience of parent, guardian, or custodian occurring on January 12, 2022, and criminal mischief and habitual disobedience of parent, guardian, or custodian occurring on August 1, 2022.¹ It indicates that J.W.’s juvenile history “includes threats to both mother and stepfather.” Id. at 101. With respect to “Prior Services Provided,” the Predispositional Report states: “[J.W.] was placed in residential placement at Southwest Regional and Gibault. [J.W.] was removed from both placements. [J.W.] has also previously been placed at Clark County Youth Shelter and Floyd County Youth Shelter with police contact at both.” Id. at 104. It states that prior evaluations indicate J.W. had been diagnosed with “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parent – Child Relational Problem, Borderline Personality Traits, Child Psychological Abuse, Child Neglect, Child Physical Abuse, Child Sexual Abuse, and Conduct Disorder.” Id. at 102.

[20] Under the heading “Evaluation/Summary,” the Predispositional Report states:

Probation finds his diagnosis of PTSD, Reactive Attachment Disorder, Borderline Personality Traits, and Conduct Disorder a risk factor of future delinquent behavior. Prior evaluations include NDI Diagnostic, Brain Mapping, Damar Diagnostic Evaluation and Clinical Interview / Assessment. These evaluations state the following concerns: social functioning, lack of self-control, fear of facing responsibilities, addictive tendencies towards opposition, mood imbalance, and refusal to cooperate with services/others. All of these concerns indicate possible future delinquent behavior and intensive mental health services needed. Evaluations recommend placement in a secure, structured and consistent environment with medication management and therapy.

Id. at 104. Under the heading “Dispositional Options Considered and Evaluation of Each,” the Predispositional Report states:

Residential Placement – PO contacted all secure residential placements in the state of Indiana due to Juvenile's history of eloping and delinquent behavior in prior placements.

Bashor: FAITH Residential Locked Secure – denied. [N]ot currently accepting referrs [sic]

Campagna Academy: Private Secure Residential

Crossroad: Secure Intensive Treatment – denied due to conduct disorder

Midwest Center for Youth and Families – denied [due] to aggression towards others

Youth Opportunity Center – denied due to RAD diagnosis

Id. The Predispositional Report continues: “Due to the consistent denials for residential placement, Probation recommends placement at the DOC pending denial of all secure residential placements.” Id. The Predispositional Report states: “The safety of the child precludes the immediate use of family services to prevent removal of the child because: [J.W.] has made multiple suicidal and homicidal statements in the past.” Id. at 106. It concludes: “It is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the home environment and remaining in the home would be contrary to the health and welfare of the child because: Safety of the child, household members and community.” Id.

[21] Based upon the record, we conclude that the court's ordered placement is consistent with J.W.’s best interests and the safety of the community and that the trial court's findings are sufficiently specific. We find no abuse of discretion.

[22] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Predispositional Report states that J.W.’s juvenile history also included allegations of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct on May 28, 2022; escape on August 1, 2022; battery on July 30, 2024; and criminal mischief on October 4, 2024. The Predispositional Report lists the disposition for these as “Not Filed.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 98-99.

Brown, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Weissmann concur. Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.