N.D., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After threatening her father and brother with a knife in the presence of her infant daughter, 16-year-old N.D. was alleged to be a delinquent child. She later admitted to acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute battery, intimidation, and neglect of a dependent. For this, the juvenile court committed N.D. to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for housing in a juvenile facility. N.D. appeals this sanction, arguing that she should be placed in a less restrictive environment. But less restrictive alternatives, including extensive mental health treatment, had proven unsuccessful as N.D.’s violent behaviors continued to escalate. We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing N.D. to DOC. We affirm.

Facts

[2] N.D.’s involvement with the juvenile justice system began in October 2023, when she was 14 years old. She was referred to juvenile court after engaging in a physical altercation with another student at school. That referral resulted in an informal adjustment. N.D. was soon after expelled from school due to problematic behavior, low grades, and poor attendance.

[3] Around this time, N.D. also began exhibiting signs of significant mental health issues, leading to approximately 38 total acute stays at various facilities. These stays were prompted by N.D.’s self-harm, threats to harm others, suicidal ideation, and multiple suicide attempts. She was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depression, dysregulated disruptive mood disorder, impulse disorder, anxiety, and conduct disorder.

[4] N.D.’s violent behavior continued to escalate. In April 2024, while N.D. was pregnant, she attempted to hurt herself by hitting her stomach after becoming upset with her mother. She was transported to the hospital as a result. A few days later, N.D. engaged in a physical altercation with her brother causing injuries to them both. That same month, she was transported to the hospital again after being unruly with her parents and attempting suicide by consuming a large quantity of medication. These incidents resulted in multiple juvenile court referrals for offenses including domestic battery, and habitual disobedience to a parent.

[5] Over the following months, N.D. accumulated more juvenile court referrals after incidents in which she kicked a door, punched walls, and damaged her mother's phone and vehicle. She was also transported again to the hospital after consuming a bottle of cough medicine. And during another visit to the hospital, she engaged in a physical altercation with her mother.

[6] In September 2024, N.D. was alleged to have threatened to kill her family after getting in an argument with her parents about her phone. The following month, she again threatened to harm everyone in her family with a pair of scissors. Soon after, N.D. was placed in a state psychiatric institution for six months of residential treatment due to “suicidal and homicidal intent.” Supp. App. Vol. II, p. 13. Meanwhile, N.D.’s parents obtained guardianship over N.D.’s infant child.

[7] Upon her release from that extended stay, N.D.’s troubling behavior resumed. Just two weeks after returning to her family's home, she engaged in another act of violence. After becoming angry about access to her cell phone, N.D. threatened her father and brother with a knife. Her 15-month-old daughter was present and placed in danger. When police officers were dispatched to the home, N.D. intentionally placed her bodily fluids on the officers.¹ N.D. was eventually transported to the hospital for a mental health evaluation, after which she was placed in a residential treatment center.

[8] Based on this incident, the State filed a petition alleging that N.D. was a delinquent child. The petition alleged that she had engaged in acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Level 5 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, and Level 6 felony battery. The juvenile court authorized N.D.’s custody in a juvenile detention center. While in detention, N.D. continued to exhibit behavioral problems: “playing staff,” refusing to go to her room when told, and speaking when told to be quiet. Supp. App. Vol. II, p. 16. Also while in detention, she was transported to the hospital for suicidal behavior.

[9] N.D. later admitted to the allegations in the State's delinquency petition. The court then held a dispositional hearing, at which a predispositional report was presented without objection. The report summarized N.D.’s 38 acute stays at mental health facilities and her 9 juvenile referrals. The report advised that N.D. would not benefit from supervised probation because she continued to engage in delinquent acts despite services. As a result, the report recommended placement in DOC and completion of assessments for her health and education.

[10] N.D. opposed placement in DOC and requested to return to her parents’ home. However, her father testified that N.D. returning home would be “risky,” explaining: “[N.D.] becomes violent and it's hard to keep everybody safe, it's hard to keep her safe.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 37-38. N.D.’s mother also expressed concern about the safety of N.D., her infant child, and the family.

[11] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court committed N.D. to DOC for indeterminate detention and the completion of assessments for services, with the ultimate goal of reunification with her family. The court explained that N.D.’s behavior had gotten “progressively worse” and “progressively more violent.” Id. at 41. It noted that N.D. had “exhausted all local resources” and continued to disobey rules even in the juvenile detention facility where she stayed pending the hearing. App. Vol. II, p. 46. Because of this, the court found that placement in a less restrictive environment would be unsafe for N.D. and her family and would not be in N.D.’s best interest.

Discussion and Decision

[12] On appeal, N.D. argues the juvenile court erred by committing her to DOC. She claims that based on the evidence before it, the trial court should not have found that DOC commitment serves the goal of rehabilitation, is in her best interest, is necessary for community safety, and is the least restrictive option. We disagree.

[13] The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). On review, we reverse such disposition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the court's actions are clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. The court's discretion, however, is subject to the considerations required by statute. Id.

[14] Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 requires the juvenile court to “select the least restrictive placement that is ‘consistent with the safety of the community and best interest of the child.’ ” R.H., 937 N.E.2d at 388 (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6). Specifically, the statute provides:

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.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.

[15] Though commitment to DOC is the most restrictive disposition available, the statute recognizes that “in certain situations the best interests of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (affirming DOC placement where less restrictive efforts “failed to reach” the juvenile and his problematic behavior persisted even after becoming involved with juvenile justice system). Sometimes the “most effective rehabilitative” placement is in DOC. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

[16] Here, the juvenile court's decision to commit N.D. to DOC was consistent with the statute and broader policy favoring rehabilitation for several reasons. First, N.D.’s behavior showed a clear pattern of violent escalation. During the two years since her first juvenile referral, N.D.’s conduct became “progressively worse.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 41. The incidents grew from physical fights to self-harm, to suicide attempts, to threatening her family with scissors, to threatening her family with a knife while placing her infant child in danger and placing her bodily fluids on the responding officers. Though this was her first formal adjudication, the juvenile court noted N.D.’s delinquency history of “multiple referrals that tend to progressively become more violent.” App. Vol. II, p. 46; see R.H., 937 N.E.2d at 390 (affirming DOC placement for first adjudication where juvenile exhibited troubling behavior such as sexual misconduct and substance abuse).

[17] Second, N.D. had already been placed in numerous less restrictive settings without success. She received extensive mental health treatment—approximately 38 acute stays—which did not improve her behavior. Just two weeks after her release from a six-month-stay at a state psychiatric institution for suicidal and homicidal intent, she committed the violent acts underlying this case. During her short stay in juvenile detention pending the disposition of this case, N.D. also exhibited behavioral issues and suicidal ideation. Finally, her parents testified that returning N.D. to the home would be a risk to her safety and the safety of the family.

[18] Finally, N.D. cites distinguishable case law in which DOC commitments were reversed. In C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), the juvenile's offense was relatively minor (theft of a firearm) and his behavior during detention was exemplary. Id. at 205. In E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), the juvenile's offenses were nonviolent and he made significant improvement in his foster home. Id. at 685-86. In Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), the pre-dispositional report used by the court was inadequate because it failed to mention or investigate the juvenile's emotional and psychological needs. Id. at 1201. Here, by contrast, N.D.’s conduct involved a pattern of serious violent acts, and her behavioral issues persisted while in detention without any sign of improvement. The pre-dispositional report documented N.D.’s years of mental health treatment, which failed to prevent her escalating violence towards herself and others.

[19] Considering N.D.’s history, the juvenile court was well within its discretion to determine that other less restrictive placements would be ineffective. See M.Q.M. v. State, 840 N.E.2d 441, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (noting that juvenile court has no obligation to revisit failed placement strategies). Given her repeated attempts to harm herself and others, we cannot say that the court erred in finding that the “more closely-supervised and restrictive environment” of DOC was in N.D.’s best interest and consistent with community safety. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. We therefore affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record does not reveal further detail as to N.D.’s actions.

Weissmann, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.