J.I., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] J.I., a delinquent child, violated the conditions of probation and was placed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). J.I. appeals, claiming the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing him in the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] J.I. was born in May 2008. On January 8, 2025, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that, on January 3, 2025, J.I. engaged in conduct that would constitute the following offenses if committed by an adult: Count 1 - Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; Count 2 – Class C misdemeanor minor consuming alcohol; and Count 3 – Class B misdemeanor furnishing alcohol to a minor. J.I.—who at that point was sixteen years old—admitted to the allegations in Counts 1 and 3, and the State moved to dismiss Count 2. The juvenile court accepted the admissions, dismissed Count 2, and adjudicated J.I. a delinquent child. The dispositional hearing was held on January 29, 2025.

[3] A pre-dispositional report reflected that J.I.’s contact with the juvenile justice system began at the age of thirteen, when J.I. was alleged to have committed domestic battery in July 2021. J.I. received an informal adjustment, which failed when he committed habitual disobedience in January 2022. J.I. initially received shelter care and twenty-four-hour adult supervision. He was ordered to participate in an evening reporting program, family counseling, and home-based services, but was unsuccessful because he committed theft in March 2022. Thereafter, J.I. participated in counseling, and he successfully stepped down from secure detention at the Kinsey Youth Center to formal probation. In March 2023, J.I. was adjudicated a delinquent child for theft and truancy. Initially, J.I. was placed on formal probation. J.I. subsequently violated his probation by committing battery and theft. Initially, J.I. received a suspended commitment to the DOC with a period of time in secure detention. After J.I. was released, he committed burglary. J.I. was committed to the DOC in October 2023 and released to parole in September 2024. Four months later, J.I. committed the instant delinquent acts, admitting to running from law enforcement after he was caught having sexual relations with a juvenile and furnishing her with alcohol.

[4] The juvenile court placed J.I. on formal probation, requiring that he participate in the REACH program through Turning Point and enroll in an educational program. About one month later, J.I. committed the delinquent act of leaving the scene of an accident after he drove a vehicle into a tree. There were other juveniles inside the vehicle, including a juvenile who J.I. was prohibited from socializing with because they were both on probation. Due to J.I.’s delinquent conduct, the probation department petitioned to modify the dispositional order. The juvenile court later modified its disposition, placing J.I. on a suspended commitment to the DOC and ordering a thirty-day placement at the Kinsey Youth Center. Formal probation was to follow with a condition that J.I. enroll in an educational program. A probation review hearing was held on June 6, 2025, where the probation department noted that J.I. enrolled in an educational program, but was mentioned in several police investigations. The probation officer warned J.I. that continued delinquent conduct would result in his return to the DOC. The juvenile court ultimately ordered that J.I. remain on formal probation and enroll in REACH, which he had not previously participated in.

[5] A few days later, on June 10, 2025, J.I. tested positive for methamphetamine. The probation department again petitioned to modify the disposition, and J.I. admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine. In a modification report, the probation department recommended placement in the DOC, noting that J.I.’s “areas of concern can no longer be addressed within the community as [he] has failed to take advantage of services being offered to him” and he “continues to make poor decisions and places ․ his own safety and [that of] the community at high risk each day.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 181. A hearing was held in August 2025, at which point J.I. was seventeen years old.

[6] At the hearing, the State agreed with the recommendation of the probation department. J.I. asked that he be able to return home, ultimately seeking “grace and mercy” for “two primary reasons,” which were that his mother needs heart surgery and he “has a child due to be born in February.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 4. The juvenile court took judicial notice of the contents of the modification report, which outlined J.I.’s juvenile history. Reflecting on that history, the juvenile court observed that J.I. had already been given “a lot of chances in the community” that “maybe would have kept us away from this thing.” Id. at 5. After recounting the services and placements previously offered to J.I., the court remarked: “I feel that at this point, looking at the ․ history, and the failure of community resources, that I'm going to follow the recommendation of the probation department, and I'm going to show that you are committed to the [DOC], juvenile division ․” Id. at 5–6. The court added that it would not be reassuming jurisdiction after the commitment. J.I. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] J.I. challenges the juvenile court's decision to modify his placement to the DOC. In general, a juvenile court “may modify any dispositional decree ․” Ind. Code § 31-37-22-1. When entering or modifying a dispositional decree, the juvenile court must comply with Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6, which states:

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.

[8] The foregoing statute “recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” M.M. v. State, 189 N.E.3d 1163, 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). “The specific disposition of a delinquent [child] is within the juvenile court's discretion, to be guided by the following considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent, guardian, or custodian.” Id. at 1166 (quoting K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). We review a dispositional decision for an abuse of discretion, id., reversing only if the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court” or if the court “misinterpret[ed] the law,” J.Q.R. v. State, 252 N.E.3d 919, 924 (Ind. 2025). In conducting our review, we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Rather, in reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. See Meehan v. Meehan, 425 N.E.2d 157, 161 (Ind. 1981). This deferential standard recognizes the juvenile court's unique position to assess the evidence and tailor a dispositional order that suits the circumstances based on the available placement options and the needs of the child. Cf. D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

[9] Here, J.I. claims the juvenile court misapplied the law when it said it was “going to follow the recommendation of the probation department ․” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 5. J.I. directs us to E.L. v. State, where the court committed a child to the DOC while remarking that it was “obliged” to “follow [a] policy” calling for re-commitment. 783 N.E.2d 360, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). On appeal, this court reversed the order based on the remarks about the policy; those remarks indicated that the court “felt constrained” to apply a policy that “shift[ed] the focus away from less restrictive alternatives,” running “counter to the court's duty to make an individualized determination in each case.” Id. at 367. In this case, there is nothing in the court's remarks indicating that it felt obligated to follow the recommendation in the report. Rather, the record indicates that the juvenile court thoughtfully reflected on J.I.’s conduct—including his prior opportunities for rehabilitation—and agreed with the probation department's recommendation that the circumstances warranted commitment to the DOC. We, therefore, disagree that E.L. supports reversal of the dispositional order.

[10] J.I. next argues that the juvenile court should have ordered a less-restrictive placement, such as electronic home detention. J.I. claims that placement in the DOC was improper because he was committed “without addressing his mental health and substance use issues.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. He also suggests that the juvenile court erred because “[t]here was no witness testimony at the [h]earing about why the DOC is the most appropriate place for him.” Id. J.I. points out that “[c]ommitment to the DOC is the most restrictive disposition available,” and he argues that the DOC “should be treated as a last resort.” Id.

[11] J.I. likens his case to C.H. v. State, where it was determined that placement in the DOC was improper for a first-time delinquency adjudication where there was evidence the juvenile had good behavior prior to disposition and presented a low risk of reoffending. 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). That case is readily distinguishable because this is not J.I.’s first delinquency adjudication. Indeed, J.I. has not challenged any aspect of the modification report, which reflects that, starting at the age of thirteen, he engaged in a string of delinquent behavior that led to a commitment to the DOC in October 2023. Four months after his release, J.I. committed the delinquent acts that led to the instant case.

[12] On appeal, J.I. points out that he had periods of compliance in the past and there was at least some evidence of positive behavior during his time at the Kinsey Youth Center, indicating that he was “certainly not beyond the hope of rehabilitation for a young man.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. We note, however, that the juvenile court initially extended grace to J.I., placing him on formal probation and requiring that he participate in the REACH program and enroll in an educational program. Approximately one month later, J.I. violated his probation by socializing with another child on probation and committing the delinquent act of leaving the scene of an accident after driving into a tree. Thereafter, the juvenile court again extended grace, suspending a commitment to the DOC, ordering a thirty-day placement at the Kinsey Youth Center, and giving J.I. the opportunity to remain in the community by following the rules of probation and enrolling in an educational program. However, J.I. did not follow the rules of probation, instead testing positive for methamphetamine. Furthermore, although J.I. argues that he should have received additional services in the community, the record establishes a history of non-compliance.

[13] As we have explained, “[t]he goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation so that the youth will correct his behavior and not become a criminal as an adult.” R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 722–23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). In this case, there is ample evidence that J.I. had the opportunity to remain in the community with less-restrictive placements and demonstrate his ability to follow the law. The modification report noted that J.I. was previously committed to the DOC “to help address his poor decision making, delinquent behaviors[,] and lack of proper life skills in October 2023” and was successfully released on parole in September 2024 “after completing several programs to address his needs.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 180. Yet, even after that commitment to the DOC, J.I. continued to make poor decisions, committing delinquent acts four months after his release and jeopardizing his health with the use of methamphetamine. As the modification report put it, J.I.’s poor decision-making ultimately puts “his own safety and [that of] the community at high risk ․” Id. at 181.

[14] Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, the juvenile court was well within its discretion to conclude that placing J.I. in the DOC was the only option consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of J.I. We, therefore, cannot say the court abused its discretion in modifying the dispositional order and ordering J.I. committed to the DOC.

[15] Affirmed.

Foley, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J. and Weissmann, J., concur.