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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] K.R. admitted to being a juvenile delinquent for robbing a delivery driver, and the trial court placed him on probation, including home detention with GPS monitoring. Less than two weeks later, K.R. cut off his ankle monitor and ran away from home. The State sought to modify K.R.’s dispositional decree for violating the conditions of his probation, and the trial court committed him to the Department of Correction (DOC). K.R. now appeals, arguing the trial court erred in not ordering the preparation of a modification report and in committing him to the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] K.R. was placed in foster care when he was 8 years old and began living with his adoptive parents in 2021, when he was 12. On January 11, 2025, K.R., then 15, punched a DoorDash delivery driver in the face, knocking him to the ground, and stole the food order. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that K.R. committed what would be Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. The State requested an emergency order of detention, citing the offenses, that K.R. had a history of leaving home without permission, that his whereabouts had been unknown to his parents since mid-December, and that he was a danger to himself and the community. The trial court issued an emergency order of detention, and K.R. was apprehended and detained on January 24.

[3] On January 26, the probation department filed a Preliminary Inquiry Report, which was based on interviews with K.R. and his parents as well as K.R.’s health, legal, and educational records. K.R.’s parents explained that, over the past year, K.R.’s behaviors had “escalated,” with him becoming increasingly “defiant, argumentative and destructive.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 33. For example, K.R. had punched holes in walls, stolen items from family members, and threatened to harm others. In addition, his parents feared for their safety because K.R. didn't follow their rules and was “seen on social media possessing and posing with firearms.” Id. His parents said K.R. had run away approximately 20 times over the past several months.

[4] The Preliminary Inquiry Report also outlined K.R.’s behavioral-health history. K.R. first began receiving counseling services when he was 7. In 2024, he was admitted to acute inpatient care three times (July, October, and November). In December 2024, K.R. completed an intake session at Hamilton Center, but he ran away before completing any additional sessions. K.R. also struggled in school. During the 2024-25 school year, he was suspended three times (twice for fighting). Due to poor attendance, K.R. was administratively withdrawn from school in January 2025. Finally, the Preliminary Inquiry Report noted that K.R. had been assessed for risk and needs through the Indiana Youth Assessment System—Detention Tool, which put him in the “High risk” and “Detain” categories. Id. at 35.

[5] An initial hearing was held on January 27, and the trial court continued K.R. in detention because he was a threat to the community and himself and would likely run away. The court noted that his parents were unwilling to bring him home. Id. at 43. In February, K.R. admitted to Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. The court adjudged K.R. to be a delinquent child, continued him in detention, and ordered the probation department to find a residential placement for him. The dispositional hearing was continued several times while probation continued to seek a placement and a psychological evaluation was completed. K.R.’s parents were still unwilling to bring him home. See id. at 51.

[6] Dr. Jim J. Dalton filed a 20-page Psychological and Behavioral Risk Assessment on March 28. Dr. Dalton noted that K.R. displayed “high levels of reckless and dangerous behaviors when in the community” and had “little empathy for others,” which stemmed from early childhood trauma. Id. at 91. Dr. Dalton also noted K.R.’s “excessive and recent drug abuse.” Id. at 92. He stated that if K.R. were to return to his home or community, “the likelihood of continued and increasing maladjustment (anger, violence, drug abuse, runaways) is nearly 100%.” Id. at 93. In addition, there was “a very good chance” that K.R.’s antisocial behaviors would “increase in acuity and dangerousness.” Id. Dr. Dalton concluded that “[K.R.] presents with too significant of a risk profile for a recommendation to return to the home or the community as his risk and need profile does not match will [sic] with any level of community-based support or interventions. As stated, he will run away and engage in dangerous behaviors if he returns home.” Id. at 94. Dr. Dalton recommended treatment in a residential placement or commitment to the DOC.

[7] The dispositional hearing was held on April 7, and the trial court placed K.R. on probation, including home detention with GPS monitoring. The court warned K.R. that if he “mess[ed] up,” it would send him to the DOC. See Tr. pp. 4, 28. K.R. went home on April 8.

[8] Eleven days later, on April 19, K.R. cut off his ankle monitor and ran away from home. On April 21, the State moved to modify K.R.’s dispositional decree for violating the conditions of his probation. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 100. A hearing was held that day, but K.R. was still on the run and didn't appear. K.R.’s parents, however, appeared and told the trial court that K.R. should never have been placed with them on home detention because he needed more help than they could provide and that they feared for their safety because of his aggression and guns. The court issued an emergency order of detention and instructed K.R.’s parents to call the police if he returned.

[9] K.R. was apprehended and detained on May 19, and a probation-violation hearing was held on May 27. K.R. admitted that he violated the conditions of his probation, and the court proceeded to disposition. K.R.’s probation officer recommended that he be committed to the DOC. The probation officer acknowledged that Dr. Dalton had recommended either the DOC or a residential placement but noted that the DOC was the only option, as 15 residential placements had rejected K.R. based mainly on his aggression. See Tr. p. 22. K.R. testified and asked to be returned to home detention. He explained that he cut off his ankle monitor and ran away because he was “bored” and wanted to go visit his biological mother, whose parental rights had been terminated in 2019. Id. at 23. The trial court told K.R. that it had already given him a chance, but he showed that he couldn't be “trust[ed].” Id. at 29. Accordingly, the court committed K.R. to the DOC.

[10] K.R. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The trial court did not commit fundamental error in failing to order the preparation of a modification report

[11] K.R. first contends that the trial court erred in failing to order the preparation of a modification report once the State moved to modify his dispositional decree for violating the conditions of his probation. Indiana Code section 31-37-22-4 provides that if the State requests modification of a juvenile's dispositional decree, a modification report that complies with Indiana Code chapter 31-37-17 “shall be prepared.” Such a report must contain, among other things, a validated risk and needs assessment as well as a description and evaluation of all the dispositional options. See Ind. Code § 31-37-17-6.1(a).

[12] The State acknowledges that the trial court should have ordered the preparation of a modification report. However, the State claims that K.R. has waived review of this issue because he didn't object below. Accordingly, the State asserts that K.R. must establish fundamental error on appeal. But K.R. doesn't argue fundamental error on appeal and has arguably doubly waived this issue. See Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1179 (Ind. 2016) (holding that where appellant “failed to raise the issue of fundamental error in his initial appellate brief[,]” such a claim was “entirely waived”).

[13] Regardless, K.R. cannot establish fundamental error. As the State points out, the trial court already had evidence before it that largely addressed the requirements of the modification report, including the Preliminary Inquiry Report filed on January 26, 2025, the Psychological and Behavioral Risk Assessment filed on March 28, K.R.’s parents testimony at the April 21 hearing, and the probation officer's testimony at the May 27 hearing that 15 residential placements had rejected him. Cf. A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (reversing a juvenile's commitment to the DOC because the statutorily required predispositional report wasn't prepared, which would have evaluated the juvenile's placement options in the context of his needs). Moreover, as the State highlights, K.R. “fails to identify what information a modification report would have included that was not already known and before” the court. Appellee's Br. p. 19. This is especially so considering that K.R. and his attorney spoke at the May 27 hearing and neither claimed that K.R. had made any improvements or pointed to other evidence that supported a different disposition. The trial court did not commit fundamental error in failing to order the preparation of a modification report.¹

II. The trial court did not err in committing K.R. to the DOC

[14] K.R. next contends that the trial court erred in committing him to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the juvenile court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:

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.

The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.

[15] Here, the record shows that before the delinquency petition was filed, K.R. had been displaying concerning behaviors and had run away from home 20 times. After he robbed the delivery driver, he stayed on the run until he was apprehended a few weeks later. He was detained while the probation department sought a residential placement for him and a psychological evaluation was completed. The psychological evaluation found that “[K.R.] presents with too significant of a risk profile for a recommendation to return to the home or the community as his risk and need profile does not match will [sic] with any level of community-based support or interventions.” Despite this evaluation and K.R.’s parents’ concerns about him returning home, the trial court allowed K.R. to serve his sentence on home detention. Importantly, K.R. knew that a violation would cause him to be sent to the DOC. Yet, 11 days later, K.R. squandered that opportunity by cutting off his ankle monitor and running away from home again. At the hearing, the probation officer testified that the DOC was now the only option for K.R. as 15 residential facilities had rejected him. For all the above reasons, the trial court acted well within its discretion in committing K.R. to the DOC.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   K.R. also notes that the trial court failed to order the preparation of a predispositional report before placing him on probation with home detention. But K.R. is appealing the modification of his dispositional decree, not the original one, so the relevant report is the modification report.

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.