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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While on a suspended commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication, seventeen-year-old C.W. removed his ankle monitor at school and absconded for three days. C.W. later admitted the allegations in the new delinquency petition that he committed acts that would constitute Level 6 felony escape if committed by an adult. Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court granted wardship of C.W. to the DOC. On appeal, C.W. contends that such a disposition constituted an abuse of discretion.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In June 2024, at the age of sixteen, C.W. committed an act that would be battery, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. He was subsequently adjudicated a delinquent under cause 02D07-2406-JD-618 (JD-618) for this act. This was C.W.’s seventh juvenile referral since the age of fourteen. On September 26, 2024, in cause JD-618, the juvenile court placed C.W. on a suspended commitment to the DOC.

[4] After participating in school virtually for the first semester, C.W. returned to classes at his high school in January 2025. He was still on probation and electronic monitoring at the time. By mid-February, C.W. was reportedly having disciplinary issues at home. Then on February 20, while at school, C.W. cut off his ankle monitor and threw it into a toilet. That same day, a notice of probation violation was filed, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

[5] Three days later, C.W. was located and arrested at the home of a juvenile, M.W., with whom C.W. had been ordered to have no contact, as they had a history of committing delinquent acts together. There was also another juvenile in the home “who was actively on the run as well.” Appendix at 16. C.W. tested positive for marijuana when admitted to the Allen County Juvenile Center (ACJC) after his arrest. At a detention hearing on February 25, the juvenile court ordered C.W. to be held in temporary secure detention at the ACJC.

[6] On March 3, 2025, the State initiated the instant case, alleging that C.W. was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be Level 6 felony escape if committed by an adult. At the initial hearing the next day, C.W. admitted to the delinquency allegation. On March 25, the probation department filed a predisposition/modification report (PDR), recommending commitment to the DOC and noting that C.W.’s overall risk assessment put him at a high risk to reoffend.

[7] The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on April 1, 2025. C.W. asked for another chance before being sent to the DOC. Specifically, he sought to be committed to the ACJC for sixty to ninety days to continue with services currently being offered and continue ADHD medication. Probation Officer Amy Wolfrum, however, recommended commitment to the DOC. Wolfrum noted, among other things, that: C.W. had nine total delinquency referrals; JD-618 involved “battery [of] a young lady, a very violent offense” for which he received a suspended commitment to the DOC; the current adjudication involved escape, which is a violent offense by statute and makes him a flight risk; C.W. absconded from probation supervision for multiple days prior to being arrested in M.W.’s home; and C.W. received “multiple reports of issues and disciplinary action” while in the ACJC. Transcript at 17. In sum, Wolfrum testified that “probation is unsure of what else we can offer him” and that “the services, the structure, the supervision that he'll be able to get [in the] DOC is most appropriate at this time.” Id. at 19. She continued: “[C.W.] is seventeen, he's about to [be] eighteen next January. He's got to get back on track educationally, he's got to get back on track with his poor peer associations, his substance use, his thinking errors. Those are all things that can be addressed at [the] DOC.” Id.

[8] At the conclusion of the evidence, the juvenile court ordered C.W. committed to the DOC. The court made a lengthy statement explaining its decision and then concluded:

You do need structure. You do need more intensive therapy, that's really clear. And you need more help with school. You need help with your drug and alcohol stuff. I don't have that available here for you [in the ACJC]. I could indeed put you in the MRT program, but that's not going to help with the drug and alcohol stuff. It's not going to help with the school because I don't have access- I can't get you full school- full school curriculum here. Fort Wayne Community Schools just doesn't offer it. They do however at the Department of Corrections․. So [C.W.], under all totality of circumstances, I am going to accept the recommendation of the probation department here because I do believe that this is the ․ best fit for services for you.

Id. at 29-30. In its written order, issued the same day, the juvenile court made the following findings:

l. The act committed by the juvenile would constitute a felony if committed by an adult.

2. The juvenile has an extensive history of incorrigible behavior.

3. The juvenile was under probation supervision at the time the new offense was committed.

4. The juvenile's delinquent conduct is chronic and escalating and the juvenile has been offered ample opportunities to alter such behavior.

5. The juvenile must learn the logical and natural consequences of delinquent behavior.

6. The juvenile is in need of rehabilitation and will benefit from a highly structured environment.

7. Probation and/or community services have been exhausted and/or will be ineffective to effectuate the juvenile's care, treatment and rehabilitation.

8. The juvenile's IYAS score shows that the juvenile is at a high risk to reoffend.

9. It is the majority recommendation of the Placement Board that the juvenile be committed to the [DOC].

Appendix at 38. The Court ultimately determined that detention in the DOC “is essential to protect the child or community and is in the child's best interests.” Id. at 39.

[9] C.W. appeals the dispositional order. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

[10] A juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles, and its choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied, cert. denied. Such discretion is subject to the 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 the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Id.

[11] Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:

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 th child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and

(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.

[12] “Although the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement, it allows for a more restrictive placement under certain circumstances.” M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. That is, placement in the least restrictive setting is required only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” See I.C. § 31-37-18-6; M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. “Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement because ‘commitment to a public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society.’ ” Id. (quoting D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)).

[13] In this appeal, C.W. “does not contest any of the trial court's findings of fact, only whether the findings support the judgment.” Appellant's Brief at 15. The unchallenged findings establish that C.W. has an “extensive history” of delinquent conduct, which has been “chronic and escalating” over the years. Appendix at 38. Despite “ample opportunities” being offered through the juvenile justice system, C.W. has failed to alter his behavior and has now committed an offense, while on probation and electronic monitoring, that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. Id. C.W. has shown that he needs a highly structured environment. C.W. is at a high risk to reoffend, and “[p]robation and/or community services have been exhausted and/or will be ineffective to effectuate [his] care, treatment and rehabilitation.” Id.

[14] C.W. contends, on appeal, that the juvenile court should have continued him on probation with electronic monitoring. But not even C.W. argued below that such a disposition would be appropriate. Rather, C.W. asked the juvenile court to send him to the ACJC for a fixed stay of sixty to ninety days and then return him to probation. The juvenile court, however, explained at the dispositional hearing that, unlike the DOC, the ACJC lacked resources to help C.W. continue with school and address his drug issues.

[15] Further, C.W. acknowledges that he had “three adjudications for crimes of violence” – two separate batteries resulting in bodily injury in 2024 and the instant escape – but he asserts that “he has not shown any tendencies to be violent or dangerous to the community.” Appellant's Brief at 15. This statement is nonsensical. Further, Wolfrum testified that JD-618 involved a “very violent” battery of a young lady. Transcript at 17.

[16] The record establishes that from the age of fourteen C.W. has been afforded a wide range of rehabilitative efforts, yet he has continued to use drugs, to associate with other juveniles who engage in violent and delinquent behaviors,¹ and to commit violent offenses. His delinquent behavior has now escalated to a felony level crime if committed by an adult. Time is short for rehabilitation through the juvenile justice system, as C.W. in nearing the age of eighteen, and all community-based options have been exhausted. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that commitment to the DOC was in C.W.’s best interests and essential to the safety of the community.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to the PDR, five of C.W.’s friends all have prior delinquency involvement with the Allen County Juvenile Probation Department. Of note, C.W. had been arrested twice in 2024 with M.W., first on allegations of theft and resisting law enforcement and then for the JD-618 battery. And the PDR stated: “Most of [C.W.’s] peers have a history of substance use and have engaged in violent and delinquent behaviors; including offenses involving handguns.” Appendix at 33.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges May and Foley concur. May, J. and Foley, J., concur.