U.K., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After U.K. violated the terms of her probation for stealing her mother's vehicle, U.K. was placed at a residential facility; while there, she stole a staff member's vehicle. U.K. admitted to this theft, and the juvenile court adjudicated her a delinquent and determined she violated the terms of her probation. After a combined dispositional and modification hearing, the juvenile court placed U.K. at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). U.K. now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding wardship of U.K. to the DOC.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 13, 2024, in Wayne County, Indiana, 13-year-old U.K. stole her mother's vehicle. As a result, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition in Cause 89D03-2405-JD-000008 (the “2024 Theft Cause”), alleging U.K. had committed theft as a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. On June 13, U.K. admitted to this allegation. Before the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered U.K. be detained because she was “unlikely to appear for subsequent hearings if she remained in the home” and she had “a subsequent Petition in another county for similar issues in this Petition”¹ . Appellant's App. Vol. II at 122–23 (emphases removed).

[4] After a dispositional hearing in August, U.K. was released to her mother and placed on formal probation for 6 months, which included 30 days of electronic monitoring. In November, a verified petition to modify now 14-year-old U.K.’s dispositional decree was filed, alleging U.K. had battered her mother, left home without permission, and physically fought a peer with whom U.K. was ordered to have no contact. After an initial hearing on this petition, the juvenile court ordered U.K. be detained because (1) she was “unlikely to appear for subsequent hearings if she remained in the home,” (2) she had “r[u]n away from home multiple times while on probation,” (3) she was “testing positive for THC Delta 8 while on probation,” (4) she had “been banned from the Richmond Walmart [for] attempting to steal alcohol while on probation,” and (5) her providers “believe[d] she [was] a danger to herself and others.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 194–95. U.K. admitted to the allegations in the November petition, and the juvenile court determined that while U.K. was in her mother's care, U.K. had “violated her electronic monitoring terms at least once,” “violated her probation terms,” “did not participate in the services provided,” “showed violence towards mother,” “left home without permission,” “admitted to being suspended for bringing a ‘vape’ to school,” “admitted to using drugs,” and “admitted to physically fighting with her family.” Id. at 225–26. The juvenile court ordered U.K. to be placed at White's Residential and Family Services (“White's”).

[5] On December 18, U.K. began her placement at White's. U.K. got off to a rocky start—she was fighting, roaming campus after hours, and stole from a staff member. On March 1, 2025, U.K. and a peer stole a White's staff member's car. When law enforcement located U.K., she refused to stop, and once she did stop the vehicle, she fled on foot. As a result, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition in Cause 89D03-2503-JD-000005 (the “2025 Theft Cause”), alleging U.K. had committed theft as a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, resisting law enforcement as a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

[6] On March 13, U.K. admitted to having committed theft in the 2025 Theft Cause and to having violated the terms of her probation in the 2024 Theft Cause. Following a combined dispositional and modification hearing in both causes, the juvenile court placed U.K. at the DOC. In support, the juvenile court found in relevant part that U.K. did not obey her mother's rules while placed with her on probation, violated the terms of her probation, refused to participate in treatment at White's, and committed a new offense while at White's; additionally, the juvenile court concluded there were “no residential facilities that will accept [U.K.] at this time” and “secured detention is not an option for” U.K. Appellant's App. Vol. III at 5. U.K. now appeals.²

Discussion and Decision

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

[7] U.K. challenges the juvenile court's decision to award wardship of her to the DOC. “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)). The disposition of a delinquent is guided by the following relevant statutory considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the juvenile, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the juvenile, and the freedom and participation of the juvenile's parent, guardian, or custodian. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. We review a juvenile court's disposition decision for an 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.

[8] Notably, “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). As this court has previously observed, placement with the DOC is not a penalty—the DOC is a secure environment that can better serve the overall purpose of rehabilitating a juvenile. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App 2002), trans. denied), trans. denied, cert. denied.

[9] U.K. argues she “should have been given another chance to participate in a residential program [that] would be less restrictive than the DOC.” Appellant's Br. at 19. In support, U.K. contends no other residential facilities were considered, there was no evidence presented regarding requests and refusals to accept U.K. at other facilities, and family therapy did not take place. U.K.’s argument disregards the fact that the juvenile court gave her numerous chances to improve her behavior and when she failed to do so, the juvenile court was forced to place her in more restrictive placement. U.K. was initially afforded the privilege of being placed on probation in the 2024 Theft Cause. When she repeatedly violated the terms of that probation, the juvenile court placed her at White's. But U.K. squandered that opportunity by repeatedly, and often violently, violating White's rules; refusing to participate in treatment; and committing theft in the 2025 Theft Cause. Moreover, in the predispositional report filed in the 2025 Theft Cause, U.K. reported being expelled from school in December 2023 when she was in sixth grade for “fighting that resulted in facial injuries to the victim,” and in November 2024, she was facing a suspension from school “for a threat via Snap Chat that stated ‘CAN I HAVE SOMEBODY GUN SO I CAN HIT A LICK.’ ” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 57. U.K. “ran from home” and was detained before a suspension decision was made. Id.

[10] The record here clearly demonstrates that U.K.’s placement at the DOC is consistent with the safety of the community and U.K.’s best interests, so we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by awarding wardship of U.K. to the DOC. We therefore affirm the juvenile court on all issues raised.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On June 10 in Marion County, U.K. allegedly stole her mother's vehicle again. On June 17, after an initial hearing on the delinquency petition related to this conduct, the Marion County juvenile court declined to authorize the filing of that delinquency petition, and the matter was closed.

2.   The document names and page references listed in the table of contents for U.K.’s appendix do not match the actual contents thereof. See Ind. Appellate Rule 50(F). In fact, the table of contents appears to be for a different appellate case (or cases) based on the references to two juvenile cause numbers that are not at issue here. For instance, there are three volumes of the appendix, but the Table of Contents only references two appendices. U.K.’s failure to provide a proper table of contents for her appendix complicated, but did not substantially impede, our review of this case.

Felix, Judge.

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