C.D., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] C.D. appeals his placement in the Department of Correction (the “DOC”) following the revocation of his probation for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.¹ He argues the trial court abused its discretion when it committed him to the DOC because there were less restrictive placements available. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] C.D. was born in March 2008. Throughout the case he lived with his grandmother ² (“Grandmother”) and several other relatives in different parts of Marion County.

[3] On June 28, 2024, C.D. punched a man several times in the head after a verbal confrontation outside a Dollar General. Based thereon, on July 13, 2024, the State alleged C.D. was a juvenile delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury under case number 49D10-2407-JD-6852 (“JD-6852”). On July 15, 2024, C.D. was arrested and the State subsequently alleged he was a juvenile delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement ³ and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana ⁴ under case number 49D10-2407-JD-7067 (“JD-7067”). On July 26, 2024, the trial court held an initial hearing on JD-6852 and C.D. did not appear. The trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.

[4] On August 26, 2024, C.D. was arrested and the State subsequently alleged that he was a juvenile delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor false identity statement ⁵ and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct ⁶ under case number 49D10-2408-JD-8321 (“JD-8321”). On August 27, 2024, the trial court held the initial hearing on JD-6852. The trial court released C.D. into Grandmother's custody and ordered him to “follow[ ] [Grandmother's] rules.” (App. Vol. II at 6) (original formatting omitted). The trial court also placed C.D. on GPS monitoring.

[5] On September 5, 2024, the probation department filed a notice that C.D. had violated the terms of his release because “[a]fter leaving school, [C.D.] made several unauthorized stops and did not return home.” (Id. at 64.) The trial court held a hearing on the matter on September 11, 2024, and ordered C.D. be placed in the juvenile detention center. While detained there, C.D. had seven incident reports – one for attempted escape, three for threatening staff, two for “inappropriate language towards a staff and for disrespecting the staff[,]” and one for “horseplaying with another resident.” (Id. at 76.)

[6] On October 8, 2024, the trial court held a hearing regarding the three pending juvenile delinquency petitions. C.D. entered an agreement with the State admitting he was a juvenile delinquent based on the allegation in case JD-6852 and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult in case JD-7067. The agreement indicated the State would request dismissal of the remaining allegation in case JD-7067 and the allegations under JD-8321.⁷ The trial court released C.D. to Grandmother's custody pending a dispositional hearing. On October 14, 2024, the trial court accepted the agreement between C.D. and the State and entered its dispositional decree. It placed C.D. on formal probation, and the terms of probation required C.D. to participate in home-based therapy and mentoring and to have no contact with the victim in JD-6852. C.D. remained on GPS monitoring in Grandmother's care.

[7] On November 4, 2024, the probation department filed a notice that C.D. had failed to comply with the location restrictions of GPS monitoring. That issue was handled internally by the probation department. On November 12, 2024, the probation department filed a notice telling the trial court that C.D. failed to comply with his probation because Grandmother reported C.D. as a runaway. C.D. was subsequently located at a family member's house and was detained until Grandmother picked him up. Based on the incident, the probation department increased C.D.’s “services with the mentor” to twice a week. (Id. at 92.)

[8] On November 26, 2024, the probation department filed a petition to modify the dispositional decree, alleging C.D. failed to return home the prior day and his whereabouts were unknown. The petition also noted it “ha[d] already completed two sanctions with [C.D.] due to [C.D.] leaving unauthorized while on GPS and due to [C.D.] leaving the home without permission again[.]” (Id. at 93.) On November 29, 2024, C.D. was arrested and the State subsequently alleged he was a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana under case number 49D10-2412-JD-11349 (“JD-11349”). On December 18, 2024, the probation department filed another notice in the trial court alleging C.D. violated his probation by leaving home without permission after attempting to cut off his GPS monitor with a knife.

[9] On January 6, 2025, C.D. was arrested and the State subsequently alleged he was a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery ⁸ in case 49D10-2501-JD-118 (“JD-118”). On January 13, 2025, the probation department filed another notice of noncompliance alleging that he violated his terms of probation by failing to obey the law based on his November and January arrests and that he had not attended school for three days. The trial court held a detention hearing on January 16, 2025, and ordered C.D. to continue placement with Grandmother and remain on GPS monitoring. On January 23, 2025, C.D. removed his GPS monitor and the State therefore alleged he was a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony escape ⁹ under case number 49D10-2401-JD-687 (“JD-687”).

[10] On February 6, 2025, the probation department gave the trial court notice of C.D.’s arrest on January 6, 2025, his subsequent juvenile delinquency allegations, and his “refus[al] to participate in Mentoring.” (Id. at 106.) The notice also indicated C.D. had “participated in therapy ․ however, [C.D.’s] recent whereabouts have prevented ongoing/consistent services.” (Id.) On February 15, 2025, the probation department alleged C.D. violated his probation by posting a YouTube video “depicting [C.D.] in possession of a firearm.” (Id. at 111.) On February 18, 2025, the trial court held a detention hearing and ordered C.D. placed in a juvenile detention facility. The trial cour also ordered C.D. to complete a psychological evaluation.

[11] On March 10, 2025, C.D. entered into an admission agreement with the State, whereby C.D. admitted the allegations under case number JD-118. As part of the agreement, the State would seek dismissal of case number JD-11349 and JD-687 and the probation department's petition to modify C.D.’s probation under JD-6852. The trial court ordered C.D. to remain on probation with the same conditions as previously required and set the matter for a dispositional hearing.

[12] On April 7, 2025, Dr. James Dalton filed his psychological evaluation of C.D. He noted in his report that Grandmother indicated C.D. “ha[d] been exhibiting very negative and aggressive behaviors in the home” and “is constantly disrespectful, ․ cusses her out, ․ kicks walls in the home, and ․ rarely cooperates with anything in the home.” (Id. at 124.) Grandmother told Dr. Dalton that “she believe[d] that [C.D. was] not capable of functioning safely at home or in the community.” (Id.) Dr. Dalton stated in his report that C.D. had attempted suicide four times and had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and ADHD in the past. Dr. Dalton indicated C.D. told him that he took medication for these conditions when he was detained but when not detained “he has never been compliant with meds.” (Id.) Based on his evaluation, Dr. Dalton recommended that C.D. should be placed in a residential placement program or be committed to the DOC.

[13] On April 30, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on C.D.’s admissions. During that hearing, the State summarized its pre-dispositional report, wherein it indicated that it had contacted eleven residential treatment facilities and ten of them “denied [C.D.] due to reported lack of availability and/or appropriate programming as well as [C.D.’s] history of suicidal thoughts/behavior.” (Id. at 142.) The trial court spoke with C.D., who asked that he “go home on GPS with family preservations” (Tr. Vol. II at 18), because he “[felt] like [he] needed to prove [himself]” before he went to the DOC by “[l]istening, doing mentoring, doing family preservations, listen[ing] to [his] grandma, go[ing] to school, do[ing] everything [he was] supposed to do so ․ [so he would not] end up going to [the] D.O.C.” (Id. at 19-20.) C.D. told the trial court that he did not want to go to the DOC because “it's hell there” and he “wouldn't like it” because “[i]t's not something that would help [him].” (Id. at 20.)

[14] After discussing with C.D. the terms of his probation as previously ordered, and ensuring C.D. knew what he was required to do, the trial court accepted accepted his admission regarding case number JD-118 and dismissed case numbers JD-11349 and JD-687. However, it rejected the part of the agreement dismissing the modification of probation under JD-6852. The trial court committed C.D. to the DOC but suspended the commitment to probation with the same conditions as in the past and the addition of family preservation services. The trial court reminded C.D. that he would be committed to DOC if he did not comply with the terms of his probation and it would “consider the smallest infraction [to be] a violation.” (Id. at 26.)

[15] On May 20, 2025, the probation department filed another petition to modify C.D.’s probation because his GPS monitor went “completely dead” and thus his location was unknown for a period of time. (App. Vol. II at 155.) On May 22, 2025, the probation department filed a petition to modify the trial court's dispositional decree, alleging C.D. violated the terms of his GPS monitoring and could not be located and refused to participate in day reporting,¹⁰ which was a condition of his probation, on three different days. On June 2, 2025, the probation department filed a notice advising the trial court that C.D.’s home-based therapist arrived at C.D.’s home on May 29, 2025, and found C.D. “stumbling and going in and out of consciousness.” (Id.) he took C.D. to the hospital “where he was evaluated and discharged.” (Id.) C.D.’s state during this incident was determined to be related to him “taking unknown pills in an attempt of self-harm.” (Id. at 157.) The probation department indicated in the notice that C.D. told his home-based therapist that “he will attempt self-harm or attempt to abscond based on the outcome of the upcoming hearing.” (Id. at 155.)

[16] On June 23, 2025, the probation department filed an amended petition to modify the trial court's dispositional decree, indicating that on June 19, 2025, C.D. told his therapist that “he smoked [marijuana] because he was bored and the Judge didn't say he couldn't smoke marijuana.” (Id. at 171-172.) In addition, the probation department stated C.D. did not participate in day reporting on June 20, 2025. On June 30, 2025, the probation department filed an amended petition to modify the dispositional decree indicating C.D. did not participate in day reporting for five days and did not participate in family preservation services on June 27, 2025.

[17] On July 1, 2025, C.D.¹¹ was arrested and the State subsequently filed a petition alleging he was a juvenile delinquent based on acts that, if committed by an adult, would have been Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia ¹² under case number 49D10-2507-JD-6639 (“JD-6639”). On July 2, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the pending petitions to modify C.D.’s dispositional order. The trial court ordered C.D. to be placed at the juvenile detention center until the next hearing on the probation department's modification petitions. On July 9, 2025, the State filed a petition alleging C.D. was a juvenile delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official ¹³ and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct in case number 49D10-2507-JD-6786 (“JD-6786”). On July 16, 2025, the State filed a petition alleging C.D. was a juvenile delinquent for acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony battery by bodily waste ¹⁴ and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement ¹⁵ under case number 49D10-2507-JD-7095 (“JD-7095”).

[18] On July 23, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the probation department's petitions to modify the trial court's dispositional order. The State requested placement in the DOC based on C.D.’s multiple violations of his probation and several petitions alleging he was a juvenile delinquent. It told the trial court that it requested that placement “in order to help [C.D.] with his rehabilitation and hopefully address a lot of underlying issues and concerns that we have, that he may have, that family [has], as well as society.” (Tr. Vol. II at 50.) The State noted that, when the trial court suspended C.D.’s placement in the DOC, he had “an[ ] opportunity and [he] subsequently began to go down hill very quickly and deteriorated at ․ an alarming rate.” (Id.)

[19] C.D. agreed with the trial court that there was “a need for modification to [his] disposition[al order].” (Id. at 48.) C.D. read a letter to the trial court in which he told the trial court that he took accountability for “not going to day reporting, smoking, and not doing [his] services full time” and acknowledged his actions “caused the Court, [his] family, and [himself] a great damage[,]” specifically that he “disrespected ․ and stressed [Grandmother] out by doing what [he] wanted to do.” (Id. at 51.) He stated that he had “been struggling [with] staff, anger, [his] depression, mood swings, withdraws [sic], and thinking about [his] momma passing, [and his] friend passing.” (Id. at 51-52.) He indicated that he smoked marijuana because it “help[ed] him ․ calm [his] mind down.” (Id.) He told the trial court that he was trying to “change [his] thoughts in order to stay calm[,] ․ trying to have better self-control[,] ․ [and] learning to ․ set goals and ways to achieve them.” (Id. at 51.)

[20] After argument and C.D.’s testimony, the trial court stated:

This isn't a difficult decision for me today. You- you had a chance. And against my better judgement the last time, I gave you this chance․ I'm so disappointed that you didn't take advantage of the opportunity that was bestowed upon you. The State went out on a limb for you, probation went out on a limb for you, people at the detention center went out on a limb for you, the therapist went out on a limb for you, I went out on a limb for you. I want- we all wanted the best for you.

(Id. at 53.) The trial court then ordered C.D. to be committed to the DOC for twelve months to

get the necessary mental health treatment you need, educational treatment you need, anger management treatment you need, grief treatment you need, and any other positive uh, social reinforcement in efforts to rehabilitate your maladaptive behaviors, your behaviors, with consequences this time. So, you have no one to look at besides yourself.

(Id. at 54.)

Discussion and Decision

[21] C.D. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it placed him in the DOC because there were less restrictive placements available. The juvenile court system is founded on the notion of parens patriae, which allows the juvenile court to step into the shoes of the parents. R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). The parens patriae doctrine gives juvenile courts power to further the best interests of the child, “which implies a broad discretion unknown in the adult court system.” Id. (quoting In re K.G., 808 NE.2d 631, 634 (Ind. 2004)).

[22] Accordingly, juvenile courts have “ ‘wide latitude and great flexibility in dealing with juveniles[.]’ ” K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied), trans. denied. Our legislature has delineated several factors for trial courts to consider in making decisions regarding delinquent children:

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.

[23] We reverse the trial court's decision “only for an abuse of discretion, that is, a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” K.S., 114 N.E.3d at 854. “In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

[24] C.D. contends the trial court abused its discretion because it did not “find a safe residential space for him outside of [the] DOC.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) He acknowledges that the probation department attempted to make several referrals to residential treatment centers but was unsuccessful in finding one. Nonetheless, he compares the DOC to “hell” and asserts placement there will not help him gain “any of the functioning and coping skills” he needs. (Id.)

[25] However, in a twelve-month period outside of DOC custody, C.D. was involved in incidents resulting in over ten juvenile delinquency petitions, adjudicated a juvenile delinquent twice, and violated the terms of his probation over twenty times. His acts included being violent toward his Grandmother, smoking marijuana, possessing a handgun, tampering with his GPS monitor, failing to report to probation as ordered, and committing several rule violations while in juvenile detention. The trial court allowed C.D. to participate in probation multiple times even though he was always unsuccessful. The State contacted eleven residential treatment facilities, and C.D. could not be placed in most of them due to his delinquent acts and mental health needs. Based on the escalation of C.D.’s delinquent behavior, his disregard for the law, his failure to abide by the conditions of less-restrictive placement, and the State's inability to find a residential treatment facility placement for him, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it committed C.D. to the DOC for a period of twelve months. See, e.g., J.S., 110 N.E.3d at 1178 (trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed J.S. in the DOC based on several juvenile adjudications, violation of home detention, and failed attempts at in-home placement).

Conclusion

[26] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed C.D. in the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

[27] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d)(1).

2.   Grandmother is also referred to as “Mother” throughout the record (see, e.g., Tr. Vol. II at 4), because she adopted C.D. after his mother died and his father's parental rights had been terminated.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a).

4.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(b).

5.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-4.

6.   Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a).

7.   These terms were all entered under case number JD-6852.

8.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a).

9.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-5(b).

10.   The trial court described day reporting as a service that would provide “daily structured programming while also addressing [C.D.’s] educational needs[.]” (Id. at 16.)

11.   At various points in the proceedings starting June 2025, C.D. the trial court ordered C.D. to be placed in a juvenile detention center but the dates C.D. was in the juvenile detention center are unclear from the record.

12.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3(b).

13.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e).

14.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(f).

15.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a).

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.