S.H., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.H. appeals the juvenile court's grant of wardship over him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). S.H. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him in the care of the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 20, 2023, S.H., who was fourteen years old at the time, entered onto Megan Kasnick's property in Warrick County with the intent to steal a dirt bike. When he could not locate the bike, he started a fire in Kasnick's yard, which spread to her fence. After receiving a report of the fire, responding officers located S.H. and two other juveniles.

[3] On August 16, 2024, also in Warrick County, S.H. got into an argument with his mother at their home, which resulted in his mother contacting law enforcement. S.H.’s mother informed the responding officer that S.H. had been “physical” with her. Appellant's App. Vol. 4, p. 8. When the officer attempted to detain S.H., S.H. “became physical” with the officer. Id.

[4] The State alleged S.H. to be a delinquent child for the above acts across multiple case numbers. S.H. admitted to the allegations. Around the same time, he was expelled from school for possessing a “THC cart.” Amended Dispositional Order at 3. The juvenile court placed S.H. at the Youth Care Center in LaPorte. While in that care, S.H. received a diagnostic assessment, which concluded that he was a high risk to reoffend. In November, S.H., now fifteen, returned to his mother's care. On January 1, 2025, he allegedly stole a car, which resulted in another delinquency petition.

[5] The court held a dispositional hearing on S.H.’s admitted acts of delinquency. At that hearing, S.H.’s mother informed the court that she preferred an out-of-home placement for S.H. And the State asked the court to place S.H. in the care of the DOC. The court agreed with the State, noting among other things the “escalating” nature of the allegations over time. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 25.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] On appeal, S.H. asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the DOC. The “juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Thus, we will reverse the court's choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child only for an abuse of discretion. Id. The “court's 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. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is “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.

[8] The choice of an appropriate juvenile disposition is governed by Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (2024), which provides as follows:

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.

Thus, “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.’ ” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). In so stating, “the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] The juvenile court's decision to place S.H. in the care of the DOC was within the facts and circumstances before the court. S.H. admitted to having committed arson as well as battery on a public safety officer. Around that same time, S.H. was expelled from school for a marijuana-related violation. And, following his admissions to the juvenile court, the court placed him with the Youth Care Center, and from there S.H. was released to the care of his mother. Shortly thereafter, S.H. was alleged to have committed auto theft.

[10] S.H. has not taken advantage of prior less-restrictive placements and has not modified his behavior. Further, while S.H.’s mother did not request S.H. to be placed with the DOC specifically, she did inform the court that an out-of-home placement would be best for S.H. S.H.’s argument on appeal simply asks our Court to reweigh the evidence and to substitute our judgment for that of the juvenile court, which we will not do.

[11] The juvenile court's grant of wardship over S.H. to the DOC is affirmed.

[12] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.