S.M., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE (2021)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] S.M. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing auto theft, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The Marion Superior Court entered a dispositional decree awarding guardianship of S.M. to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). S.M. appeals that decision, arguing that commitment to the DOC does not further the goal of rehabilitation, is not in her best interest, and is not the least restrictive alternative for placement.

[2] Concluding that the juvenile court acted within its discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] S.M. was born prematurely and addicted to cocaine due to her biological mother's drug use during pregnancy. She was removed from her mother's care at birth and placed into foster care. When S.M. was six-months old, she was placed in foster care with the parents who later adopted her. Sadly, they too neglected her. And when S.M. was thirteen years old, her parents told her, during an argument, that she was adopted and that her biological mother was a crack addict.

[4] Thereafter, thirteen-year-old S.M.’s behavior worsened, culminating in an attempted knife attack on her sister. S.M. stated she intended to kill her sister. She was also physically aggressive toward her parents. S.M. underwent a psychological evaluation as a result of her referral to the juvenile court and was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features. The evaluator concluded that S.M. was dangerous to herself and to others, and admitted S.M. to a residential treatment facility.

[5] S.M. struggled in her placements. She physically assaulted facility staff and her peers. As a result, she was placed in three different residential facilities over a three-year period. Due to S.M.’s lack of progress and her physically destructive behavior, she was committed to the DOC in June 2019. She was released in January 2020, and she participated in Transition from Restrictive Placement services through June.

[6] At that point, seventeen-year-old S.M. returned to her parents’ home. In July, however, S.M. physically assaulted her mother and threatened her with a knife. Both law enforcement officers and the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) investigated the incident. DCS expressed concern that S.M. had suffered neglect. As a result of this incident, the State filed a delinquency petition in Marion Superior Court alleging that S.M. had committed domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Initially, S.M. remained in juvenile detention, but in August, the court authorized her supervised release under the care of DCS. S.M. was placed in a foster home in South Bend, Indiana. S.M. was angry that she was moved to South Bend.

[7] On September 14, S.M. met with two social workers at her foster home in South Bend. S.M. physically assaulted both social workers. She then stole one of the social worker's car keys, ran out of the house, and drove off in the social worker's vehicle. S.M. later abandoned the car. When it was recovered, the car had both front-end and interior damage. Following this incident, the State filed a delinquency petition in St. Joseph Superior Court alleging that S.M. committed auto theft, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and that she left home without her guardian or custodian's permission.

[8] On September 27, S.M. turned herself in to law enforcement in Indianapolis. She took Xanax without a prescription prior to doing so. S.M. appeared intoxicated and was transported to a hospital. She was subsequently placed in a juvenile detention center where she was not compliant with the staff. During her detention, she “incurred seven incidents of disciplinary isolation.” Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 123.¹

[9] On October 26, the Marion Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing on the domestic battery allegation and entered a true finding for domestic battery. On November 9, the St. Joseph Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing, and S.M. admitted that she committed auto theft and that she left her foster home without permission. The St. Joseph Superior Court agreed to transfer its case to Marion Superior Court for disposition. And, on December 8, the Marion Superior Court held a consolidated dispositional hearing.

[10] At the hearing, S.M.’s parents indicated that they did not want S.M. returned to their home, and S.M. stated that she did not want to live in her parents’ home. S.M. argued for placement with Gail Logan and the Logan family,² but the State argued that S.M. should be made a ward of the DOC, as recommended by the probation department and the psychological evaluator. The State noted S.M.’s prior unsuccessful placements in residential treatment facilities and her refusal to participate in home-based therapy. S.M. has historically refused to take medications prescribed to treat her mental illness. The placement board observed that S.M. “is harmful to herself and others due to her aggressive behavior. Sending youth to residential placement is not an option as youth is adamant she will act out and attack staff/others. Thus resulting in placement failure.” Id. at 172.

[11] Dr. Jim Dalton, a child psychologist, assigned a primary diagnosis to S.M. of severe disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Dr. Dalton believed that S.M. “remains at high risk to the community” with “limited options to provide her assistance and safety[.]” Id. at 166. And S.M. “needs to be in a situation where her mental health is monitored and her risk of violence toward the community is minimized.” Id. at 168. Dr. Dalton concluded, “[w]hile DOC is not typically considered a preferred choice for youth with similar profiles, it may be [S.M.’s] only chance to gain the minimal skills necessary to be safe for the next years of her life.” Id.

[12] On December 9, the Marion Superior Court issued its dispositional decree in both cases. The court awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC “for housing in any correctional facility for children until the age of 21, unless sooner released by the” DOC. Id. at 18; Appellant's App. JV-28, p. 17. And the court recommended a commitment period of twelve months. S.M. appealed the dispositional order in both cases. On S.M.’s motion, our court consolidated the cases for the purposes of this appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[13] S.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding guardianship over her to the DOC because the commitment “does not comport with the goal of rehabilitation, it is not in S.M.’s best interest, and it is not the least restrictive alternative.” Appellant's Br. JV-17 at 10–11, Appellant's Br. JV-28 at 12. We do not agree.

[14] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the trial court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We review the trial court's dispositions and modifications thereof for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Id.

[15] Juvenile court proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. Id. “[T]he goal of the juvenile court process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a criminal as an adult.” Id. at 1175–76 (quoting R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). As such, juvenile courts have a variety of placement choices. Id. And a juvenile court has wide latitude and flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. See J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[16] The juvenile court's discretion is subject to the following statutory considerations:

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. The statute generally requires the juvenile court select the least restrictive placement, but in certain circumstances, a more restrictive placement might be appropriate. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Specifically, a more restrictive placement is appropriate when it serves both the child's best interests and the safety of the community. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see also, I.C. § 31-37-18-6.

[17] S.M.’s juvenile referrals began when she was thirteen-years old. In the years leading up to delinquency adjudications at issue here, S.M. was placed in three residential facilities and the DOC. Unfortunately, the placements were not successful and S.M. continued to commit criminal offenses. She committed domestic battery when she physically assaulted her mother and threatened her with a knife. And S.M. committed auto theft when, after physically assaulting two social workers, she stole one of the social workers’ car.

[18] Sadly, S.M. “entered the world experiencing significant biological and social deficits․ While there have been some minor improvements as she has aged, there has been few signs of emotional and behavioral stability for this girl over time.” Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 165. S.M. continues to demonstrate risky behaviors and “has consistently reacted aggressively and engaged in behaviors that are dangerous toward others.” Id. Dr. Dalton believes that S.M. is a high risk to the community and herself. Id. at 166. Dr. Dalton concluded that if S.M. “were released to any community setting before her 18th birthday or even many months after her 18th birthday, she would have a high chance of reacting/responding with behaviors that would cause harm to another person and could result in her being harmed and/or incarcerated.” Id. at 168. He also concluded that S.M. “needs to be in a situation where her mental health is monitored and her risk of violence toward the community is minimized.” Id.

[19] S.M.’s parents do not want her returned to their care. And the probation department determined that “[t]here is not a residential placement program that would accept [S.M.] for care due to her history of violence and her age.” Id. at 173. S.M. proposed placement with Gail Logan and her family, but the only evidence in the record concerning this placement option was that Logan's work schedule would allow her to supervise S.M. for most periods of time when S.M. was not in school. There was no evidence that Logan would be able to meet S.M.’s specialized needs.

[20] Tragically, given S.M.’s history of violence and her need for supervision and treatment, the juvenile court was left with only one option: awarding guardianship of S.M. to the DOC. The State presented evidence that this was S.M.’s sole remaining chance for rehabilitation, the only feasible placement option available, and in S.M.’s best interests.

Conclusion

[21] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   S.M. filed two separate appeals in this case resulting two briefs and two appendices before the appeals were consolidated. Therefore, the briefs and appendices are identified by the appellate case numbers they were originally filed under: 21A-JV-17 (the Marion County delinquency petition) and 21A-JV-28 (the St. Joseph County delinquency petition).

2.   Evidence concerning S.M.’s relationship to Logan and her family is not included in the record on appeal.

Mathias, Judge.

Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.