Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
M.B., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
 M.B. appeals the trial court's decision to grant wardship of him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). The only issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did so.
 We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
 In October of 2020, then-fifteen-year-old M.B. attended a party where gunshots were fired. Police detained M.B. at the party and filed a delinquency petition in Cause Number 71J01-2010-JD-310 (“JD-310”), alleging M.B. had committed dangerous possession of a firearm, as a Class A misdemeanor when committed by an adult;1 possession of marijuana, as a Class B misdemeanor when committed by an adult;2 and possession of a controlled substance, as a Class A misdemeanor when committed by an adult.3 At his October 9 initial hearing, M.B. admitted to possession of a firearm and marijuana, and the possession of a controlled substance allegation was dismissed. The court ordered that M.B. remain in detention pending a dispositional hearing.
 At M.B.’s January 19, 2021, dispositional hearing, the trial court placed M.B. on formal probation with day reporting and home detention. Less than one month later, M.B. removed his GPS bracelet and left his residence. On February 11, 2021, the probation department reported M.B.’s home detention violation to the court. The court held a hearing on February 12 at which M.B. failed to appear. The court issued a body attachment order, but M.B.’s whereabouts remained unknown for over a year.
 On March 15, 2022, police detained M.B. on his outstanding body attachment and filed a delinquency petition under Cause Number 71J01-2203-JD-111 (“JD-111”), alleging M.B. committed Escape, as a Level 6 felony 4 when committed by an adult. On April 12, the trial court held an initial hearing in cause JD-111, at which M.B. admitted to the allegation of escape. M.B. then requested a continuance of the dispositional hearings in JD-310 and JD-111 so that the probation department could find residential treatment facilities (“RTF”) to which M.B. could be referred and placed. The court granted that motion, ordered M.B. to provide the probation department with the names of three RTFs to which he would like to be referred, and ordered the probation department to either refer M.B. to one of those RTFs or state why referral was not appropriate.
 On May 17, the probation department completed and filed a Probation Modification Report. The report noted that M.B. had a prior juvenile history consisting of a March 2020 juvenile allegation of battery, which was subsequently dismissed with a warning, and a charge of leaving home without permission of a parent, for which he received a “Letter Offering Assistance.” App. v. III at 84. M.B. had been in high school prior to his October 2020 detention, however he had “not earned any high school credits and ha[d] a standard GPA of 0.00.” Id. at 85. Social media—including pictures of M.B. “flashing what appear to be gang-related signs”—suggested that M.B. was associated with a gang. Id. at 84. When M.B. had been detained in October of 2020, he told detention staff that he was affiliated with a gang, and, in March of 2022, detention staff found gang-related statements written on M.B.’s wall while he was in detention. M.B. received behavior incident reports while in detention for “computer misuse, disorderly conduct, destruction of property, disrespect to staff, and threats to staff.” Id. The probation department deemed M.B.’s overall risk to reoffend as high.
 The probation department had made referrals for M.B. for three RTFs. One of the RTF's denied M.B. admittance and two accepted him. However, based on M.B.’s “lack of compliance with probation, his involvement with negative peers, [his] low amenability, and being on the run for over a year,” the probation department recommended that M.B. be committed to the DOC rather than placed in one of the RTFs that would accept him. Id. at 86. The probation department stated that residential placement was not appropriate for M.B. because his “amenability to treatment is low,” and placement in the community was not appropriate because it could “not provide the level of structure and supervision necessary,” id. at 86, and “his actions pose [a] danger to himself and others,” id. at 88. The probation department noted that M.B. had been “offered services through probation including[:] electronic monitoring, substance abuse assessment and treatment, family engagement services, requested drug testing, psychological evaluation, individual therapy, and Day Reporting,” id., yet M.B. remained “non-compliant with probation supervision.” id. at 85.
 Following the May 24, 2022, dispositional hearing in JD-310 and JD-111, the trial court ordered that M.B. be made a ward of the DOC rather than be placed in a RTF. In so holding, the court adopted and incorporated the findings of the May 17 Probation Modification Report. The trial court stated as follows regarding the reasons for its placement decision:
After being placed on probation supervision on January 19, 2021, the Respondent absconded just a few weeks later. A body attachment for him was pending for just over one full year, during which time his whereabouts were unknown, at least to the Probation Department. When finally apprehended, he tested positive for marijuana.
This most recent time in detention, the Respondent's behavior has been poor and, notably, has included gang promotion. The foregoing indicates that the Dual Status Assessment Team is correct in its prediction that the Respondent will not be amenable to further rehabilitative efforts, and indeed, that he needs to be incapacitated to protect him and to protect this community.
Appealed Order at 2. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
 A trial court is given “wide latitude and great flexibility in dealing with juveniles[.]” C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. When making determinations regarding specific dispositions of delinquent children, trial courts must “be guided by the following considerations: the safety of the community, the child's best interests and freedom, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, and the freedom and opportunity for participation of the parent, guardian, or custodian.” K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6), trans. denied. We will reverse a specific disposition regarding a delinquent child 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. Id.
 M.B. asserts that the trial court erred because it failed to place him in the least restrictive placement. Although Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 requires that a trial court select the least restrictive placement for a juvenile in a delinquency dispositional decree, “it allows for a more restrictive placement under certain circumstances[,]” such as when “the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement because ‘commitment to a public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society.’ ” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied), trans. denied; see also, e.g., J.T. v. State, 111 N.E.3d 1019, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding the disposition selected for a juvenile with delinquency problems is only required to be the least restrictive disposition that is consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child), trans. denied. Thus, this Court has held that juvenile confinement in the DOC may be an “effective rehabilitative technique” when prior, less restrictive dispositions have failed repeatedly. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; see also, e.g., D.S., 829 N.E.2d at 1086 (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed juvenile in DOC when juvenile failed to respond to numerous less restrictive alternative placements).
 Here, despite receiving multiple services and less restrictive placements over the years, M.B.’s behavior continued to deteriorate. M.B. had received only warnings for his delinquent actions in March of 2020, but less than a year later, he committed the delinquent acts of possession of a firearm and marijuana. When M.B. was given yet another chance to improve his behavior while placed in the community on home detention, he absconded less than one month later and evaded the authorities for over one year. When M.B. was finally detained, he continued to engage in poor behavior, including “disorderly conduct, destruction of property, disrespect to staff, and threats to staff.” App. v. III at 84. Thus, the evidence supports the trial court's conclusions that: “[r]easonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for [M.B.s] removal” from the community, but M.B. was “uncooperative” with the services; the multiple services offered to M.B. “did not prevent removal” as M.B. continued to engage in delinquent acts; M.B.’s “actions pose a danger to himself and others;” and M.B. needs “supervision, care, treatment, and services which are NOT available in the local community:” Appealed Order at 2-3 (emphasis in original). The trial court's decision that it was in M.B.’s best interests to be placed in the DOC was not 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.
1. Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5(a) (2020).
2. I.C. § 35-48-4-11(a)(1).
3. I.C. § 35-48-4-7(a).
4. I.C. § 35-44.1-3-4(b) (effective to June 30, 2022).
5. A Dual Assessment Team had been convened because, at one point, M.B. was a Child in Need of Services (CHINS). However, there was no longer an active CHINS case by the time allegations were filed in JD-310 and JD-111.
Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-JV-1614
Decided: February 20, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)