T.R., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In this juvenile delinquency appeal, T.R. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it modified its dispositional decree to place him at the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] T.R. (born October 2010) has an extensive history of delinquent behavior and has been referred to the juvenile court nine times since he was ten years old. His first referral was in September 2021 for alleged habitual disobedience of a parent and acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Class A misdemeanor intimidation. That referral was resolved through a diversion.

[3] In a second referral filed in September 2023, T.R. was alleged to have committed acts constituting Class B misdemeanor battery and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Again, T.R. was given a diversion.

[4] In February 2024, thirteen-year-old T.R. was again alleged to have committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and he received another referral. Five months later, in July, he received his fourth referral, that time alleging he committed Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and leaving home without permission. Two months after that, in September, a fifth referral alleged T.R. had been habitually disobedient. After the September referral, T.R. was placed on informal probation.

[5] Less than one month after being put on informal probation, T.R., then fourteen, violated the terms of his probation by failing to follow his mother's rules, possessing a vape, and leaving home without permission. Based on that conduct, a sixth referral was filed in October 2024. On November 6, the juvenile court placed T.R. on formal probation. As part of his probation, he was required to participate in the REACH program for at-risk youth, join an extracurricular activity, and complete a diagnostic evaluation. Just a few weeks later, on November 24, a seventh referral alleged T.R. had again left home without permission. On December 2, the court decided T.R. should remain on formal probation.

[6] Four days later, on December 6, 2024, T.R.’s mother called the police because he had been violent to her and others in the house, had broken a window, and was threatening to run away. When the first officer arrived on the scene, T.R.’s mother said he “was trying to hurt everyone in the house, including her [five] and [six]-year-old kids.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 21. The officer then saw T.R. walking down the stairs smoking a vape. He turned around and headed back upstairs when he saw the officer. A family member blocked T.R. from going upstairs, and the officer instructed him to come down. T.R. refused, so the officer grabbed his arm. As he did, T.R. began to punch and kick him. A second officer then came to assist, and T.R. continued to physically struggle as the officers tried to restrain him. After being placed in handcuffs, T.R. yelled at the first officer “that he was going to kill [him] ․” Id. T.R.’s mother told the officers his volent behavior “ha[d] escalated to a point [that] she no longer [felt] safe in her own home.” Id. She also said “she needed further help from the court or hospital” and “she [could] no longer control [T.R.].” Id. The officers decided to take T.R. to the youth detention facility, and while en route T.R. threatened them several times. At one point, he said he would kill the second officer and “cut his girl[’]s head off and put it by a trash can.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). After arriving at the facility, T.R. had to be forcibly removed from the squad car and placed in a padded cell until he calmed down.

[7] A few days later, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition accusing T.R. of committing acts constituting Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, habitual disobedience of a parent as a status offense, Level 6 felony intimidation, and two counts of Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official. That was his eighth referral to the juvenile court. At the initial hearing on December 16, the State moved to dismiss the criminal mischief allegation, and T.R. admitted he had committed the others. The court adjudicated T.R. delinquent and ordered that he remain in the youth detention center pending a dispositional hearing in January 2025.

[8] While in detention, T.R. participated in several services, including a life skills group, emotional regulation group, nutritional education, organized recreation, and staff-led activities. Though he participated well in these programs, he continued to exhibit behavioral issues, which included frequent threats of violence. As the detention center's discharge summary explained,

[T.R.] did not interact well with staff. He frequently refused to follow directions and/or would do the opposite of what he was asked. He threatened staff frequently, saying things like, “I'm gonna crack your head,[”] [“]I hope someone shoots up your crib,[”] [“]I can't wait to get out so I can jump you” and the threats of “If I don't get out I'm beating staff's ass” as well as threatening “If the Judge doesn't let me go home I'm going to beat his ass.” It seems that in general he consistently had issues with authority.

[T.R.] earned [fourteen] offenses during his [eighteen]-day stay. That is almost one offense a day. These were for threatening other residents, cussing at staff and calling [them] names, throwing a pencil at staff and telling her to “fetch”, being removed from the unit on more than one occasion, throwing up gang signs, refusing to leave his room and cussing staff, yelling “riot” from his room, threatening staff members to slap them or beat their ass, and talking about killing cats and demonstrat[ing] how he would do so.

․ [T.R.] interacted well with some peers and not so well with others. He liked to socialize with the older male residents but often started/participated in inappropriate subjects of conversation such as talking about guns, people's charges, etc. He also did not get along with a couple other residents and sat away from most of them due to making multiple threats and constantly bickering/saying things under his breath. He had to be removed from the unit twice for getting into arguments with other residents.

Id. at 68.

[9] At the dispositional hearing on January 3, 2025, the juvenile court ordered T.R. to return to formal probation and serve four weekends in secure detention. He completed the four-weekend commitment, but thereafter, on February 28, the probation department petitioned to modify T.R.’s dispositional decree. It alleged T.R.’s mother had found a photograph on Snapchat depicting T.R. holding a firearm in her home which was against her household rules and a violation of probation. The petition further alleged that on February 25, T.R. committed acts constituting Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. At a modification hearing on March 5, T.R. admitted to those allegations and the court set a dispositional hearing for later that month.

[10] T.R. remained in secure detention while awaiting the dispositional hearing. During that time, T.R. participated in a psychological evaluation. According to that evaluation, T.R. had been “kicked out of” several schools because of his violent and disruptive behaviors, which included “being physically aggressive with others (punching, shoving others, kicking chairs), damaging school property, leaving the classroom without permission, throwing objects, and making threats to harm others.” Id. at 137. The evaluation also noted T.R.’s struggles with substance abuse, including alcohol, marijuana, and cough syrup. He was found to be functioning with a below average intelligence and was diagnosed with severe major depressive disorder due to his social isolation, aggressive and violent thoughts and behaviors, sadness, and negative mood. The report recommended, in part, that

[T.R.’s] engagement in unsafe actions that pose [a] risk to himself and others and his responsivity to less restrictive interventions[ ] necessitates a more structured approach․ [A] short-term placement in residential [treatment] is warranted․ Services while in residential [treatment] should include medication management, individual therapy, family focused therapy approaches, skills-based approaches, and mentoring services.

Id. at 145.

[11] In its pre-modification report, the probation department indicated it had “reached out to multiple residential treatment facilities across the state” to see if they would accept T.R., but “[m]any facilities stated [he] was inappropriate for their programs due to his history of being combative with others as well as his risk to run away.” Id. at 118. However, the Youth Opportunity Center (the YOC) agreed to admit T.R. to its Teaching and Empowering Adolescent Males (TEAM) program, and probation recommended that he remain on formal probation while participating in that program. At the dispositional hearing on April 23, 2025, the juvenile court accepted that recommendation and placed T.R. at the YOC.

[12] T.R. continued to have behavioral issues while at the YOC. Between his admission and a review hearing on July 23, he was the subject of no less than fourteen incident reports. Many of those incidents involved threats of violence to the YOC's residents and staff. For example, on one occasion, T.R. threatened to break a staff member's jaw. On another, when directed by a staff member to complete a chore he had been assigned, T.R. told her to “shut the fuck up” and said, “[You] won't have nothing to say when I kill [your] baby.” Id. at 241. Several other incidents involved acts of violence against people and property. During one incident, he punched a fellow resident. During another, he hit a staff member when staff tried to restrain him after he called another juvenile a “ ‘goofy-ass’ n-word” and threatened to fight him. Id. at 213. Despite these behavioral issues, before the July 23 review hearing the YOC submitted a written recommendation to the juvenile court that T.R. remain in the TEAM program. According to that recommendation, T.R. had “shown insight into what changes need[ed] to be implemented in order to have further progression in treatment.” Id. at 236. The court accepted that recommendation and continued T.R.’s placement at the YOC.

[13] After the July review hearing, T.R. continued his violent and disruptive behavior and was the subject of several more incident reports. Three notable incidents occurred on September 7 and 8, 2025. On the afternoon of the 7th, the YOC's staff confiscated a football from T.R. because he had thrown it at a staff member's head. T.R. became angry, began aggressively touching staff members, and refused to move away from staff when instructed. The staff had to restrain T.R. because he would not calm down, and while restrained he spit on several staff members. Later that evening, T.R. poured a cup of water onto the floor of a common area. When he tried to refill his cup, a staff member told him he was not allowed to pour himself anymore water. T.R. again became angry and threw his cup at the staff member, who then had to restrain T.R. and transport him to a seclusion room. While being escorted to that room, T.R. slipped out of the restraint and punched another staff member in the face. Then, after being placed in seclusion, he made several threating comments to the staff.

[14] The next day, staff again confiscated a football from T.R. after he threw it at a staff member's face. T.R. tried to forcibly take the ball back before smacking a staff member when she refused to give it to him. When staff tried to restrain T.R., he kicked, hit, and spat on them as they did. Once he had been restrained and was being escorted to the seclusion room, he told staff to “just wait till we get there I'm not going in.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 41. Indeed, when he arrived at that room, he refused to go in and began hitting staff. T.R. had to remain restrained until he calmed down.

[15] On September 16, the probation department filed a petition to modify T.R.’s dispositional decree, alleging his actions on the 7th and 8th constituted Class B misdemeanor battery and Class B misdemeanor battery by bodily waste. The petition (which was T.R.’s ninth juvenile referral) also alleged he had failed to follow the YOC's rules or make progress in his treatment plan. At a hearing on September 17, T.R. admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the court set a dispositional hearing for October 8. On September 26, the probation department received a letter from the YOC's Chief Clinical Officer informing it

that it is necessary to request that [T.R.] be removed from our program within [thirty] days of receiving this notice․

Since his admission [in April], the treatment team has attempted to work with [T.R.] to address his substance use, behavioral challenges[,] and prior trauma. Initially he made some progress, but over time he has since become a negative influence within and on the treatment environment. His behavior has become increasingly unsafe and disruptive which has led us to the difficult determination that he would be better served in another placement.

Id. at 57. The YOC also submitted a written recommendation to the court in which it explained that T.R. “ha[d] declined significantly and ha[dn't] made any progress in treatment.” Id. at 84. Accordingly, the YOC recommended “that [T.R.] be placed in an environment where he can have increased structure[,] ․ accountability[,] ․ [and] access to therapeutic programming.” Id. at 85.

[16] In its modification report, the probation department recommended that T.R. be placed at the DOC. It based that recommendation on the fact that T.R. had not been engaging appropriately in services while on probation, had failed to make progress at the YOC, and all other residential facilities contacted had refused to admit T.R. into their programs. The probation department also noted that placement in his mother's home was not in the best interests of T.R. or the community

[d]ue to [T.R.’s] HIGH risk to reoffend; the danger he presents to himself, his family, and the community; the high level/intensity of services and treatment needed; his verbal and physical aggression; and the recommendations of [the YOC] for additional secure placement for treatment ․

Id. at 80.

[17] At the dispositional hearing on October 8, 2025, T.R.’s counsel acknowledged that T.R. needed intensive therapy and services but asked that he be released to his mother's care or placed in the juvenile detention center. The juvenile court then asked T.R.’s mother what she thought of T.R.’s request to be released to her, and she replied,

I am open [to] that, if there's[ ] ․ some things structured[ ] and in place ․ to keep him and everybody else safe․ [M]y biggest concern is [T.R.] has been going to [the hospital] and other places since he was four, so it's not abnormal for him not to participate in any type of ․ counseling․ I mean, I would like to see him come home. It's just, if he could be safe in whatever structured environment that he is offered.

Transcript at 13. The court then reasoned from the bench that T.R. “need[ed] to be in a secure facility” because of his behavioral issues at the YOC and because he needed intensive treatment. Id. at 14. The court noted T.R.’s failure to get the treatment he needs in less restrictive placements before ruling that T.R. would be placed at the DOC. After the hearing, the court issued a written order consistent with that ruling. T.R. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[18] This Court routinely recognizes “[t]he disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the juvenile court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.” A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)). We will reverse only if the juvenile court abused its discretion, meaning “its decision [was] clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them.” Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200. In reviewing the court's decision, “we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Id. (quoting J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied).

[19] When issuing or modifying a dispositional decree, a juvenile court must balance several statutory factors so the juvenile's placement is “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child” and

(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.

[20] On appeal, T.R. focuses his arguments on factor (1)(A), asserting the court “had numerous options available for his placement, all of which were less severe than a commitment to the [DOC].” Appellant's Brief at 14. To begin with, it's unclear to which other options T.R. refers. He had been kicked out of the TEAM program at the YOC, no other residential facility was willing to accept him, and his previous placements at home and in juvenile detention had not been successful. In any event, a court need not place a juvenile in the least restrictive setting available; the statute instead requires “the least restrictive disposition that is ‘consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.’ ” J.T. v. State, 111 N.E.3d 1019, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)), trans. denied. And under the present circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding both considerations—i.e., the safety of the community and T.R.’s best interest—are best served by placement in the DOC.

[21] Indeed, the facts of the present case are comparable to those in J.T. There, a juvenile was initially placed on home detention with electronic monitoring after he committed a series of offenses. Id. at 1020. He was later placed in a residential facility after violating several terms of his probation. Id. While in the residential facility, the juvenile had numerous behavioral issues, including incidents of violence. Id. Eventually, the juvenile court ordered him to be placed in the DOC. Id. On appeal, a panel of this Court found the court had not abused its discretion “[g]iven the nature of [the juvenile's] acts of delinquency and the failure of less-restrictive alternatives ․” Id. at 1026. The panel reasoned,

[O]ver the course of approximately one-and-one-half years, [the juvenile] was found delinquent four times and was offered many more less-restrictive options than commitment to the DOC, to no avail. [He] ․ consistently failed to take advantage of the leniency shown him, including placement on home detention, problem-solving court, and [residential treatment] and the provision of services such as counseling and therapy. Despite all of these opportunities, the record indicate[d] that [the juvenile] never went more than a few weeks without violating the conditions of these less-restrictive options.

Id. at 1027.

[22] Likewise, T.R. (since the age of ten) has continued to engage in delinquent, violent, and disruptive actions despite being placed at home, in juvenile detention, and ultimately in residential treatment. Far from showing progress toward rehabilitation at any of these placements, T.R.’s behaviors became more extreme to the point that the YOC removed him from the TEAM program for being a danger to himself and others. In his brief, T.R. characterizes his placement at DOC as inappropriate given that he “is not a young man without the hope of rehabilitation.” Appellant's Br. at 13. But T.R.’s demonstrated need for structure and intensive services—coupled with the failure of less restrictive alternatives—is the very reason placement at the DOC is not inappropriate. As the juvenile court explained to T.R. and his mother at the October 8, 2025 dispositional hearing,

[T]here is a stigma about anyone going to the DOC because in the adult world that means prison, right? In the youth world it means counseling and programs. And I think ․ that is something we need. To have a more structured environment for [T.R.] to be able to get the intense services that he needs.

Tr. at 14.

[23] T.R. nonetheless argues his case is comparable to E.L. v. State, where this Court vacated a juvenile's recommitment to the DOC after she reoffended. 783 N.E.2d 360, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The panel reasoned the juvenile court's policy to presumptively recommit juveniles previously placed at DOC inappropriately “shift[ed] the focus away from less restrictive alternatives.” Id. But E.L. sheds little light on the present circumstances. Here, the juvenile court did not presume T.R. should be placed at the DOC, and it placed him there only after he failed in numerous less restrictive placements.

[24] T.R. also argues reversal is required under C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), because “[h]e took responsibility for his actions and admitted his wrongdoing.” Appellant's Br. at 13. But C.H. is not on point, either. There, C.H. was adjudicated delinquent after he admitted to stealing a firearm, carrying a handgun without a license, operating a vehicle without a license, and speeding. C.H., 201 N.E.3d at 204. At the dispositional hearing, a letter from the director of the detention center was admitted into evidence, extolling C.H. for making “remarkable progress” and showing “maturity and a [sense] of responsibility ․” Id. (alteration in original). Based on that letter—together with an assessment showing C.H. had a low risk to reoffend—the probation department recommended he be placed on probation and ordered to engage in community-based services. Id. The State, however, requested that he be committed to the DOC, which the juvenile court granted. Id. On appeal, the panel reversed, in part because “no other dispositional alternatives [had] been tried” and C.H. had behaved well while in juvenile detention. Id. at 205.

[25] T.R.’s circumstances are highly distinguishable from C.H. As discussed above, here the juvenile court tried several dispositional alternatives, and T.R. had behaved poorly in each less restrictive placement and failed to progress in community-based services or in treatment at the YOC. The court's decision to place T.R. at the DOC was therefore not unreasonable, as T.R. had exhausted all other viable alternatives. See id. (“[I]n some situations a commitment to the DOC, while the harshest disposition, is also the most appropriate.”).

[26] In sum, given T.R.’s repeated delinquent behaviors, increasingly violent and disruptive actions, need for intensive rehabilitative services, and demonstrated inability to succeed at numerous less restrictive placements, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing him at the DOC.

Conclusion

[27] For these reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

[28] Affirmed.

DeBoer, Judge.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.