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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] C.J. appeals his commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a juvenile-delinquency adjudication. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 8, 2025, sixteen-year-old C.J. was arrested after spitting on his father's girlfriend. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging he committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 35C01-2510-JD-43 (JD-43). At a November factfinding hearing, C.J. admitted he committed what would be Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult. The court adjudicated C.J. a delinquent. At the dispositional hearing in December, the court placed C.J. with his father and ordered him to serve six months on probation. As terms of probation, C.J. was to abide by a curfew, attend individual therapy, and participate in random drug testing.

[3] One month later, police pulled over a car in which C.J. was a passenger. There were open bottles of alcohol inside the car, and officers reported the car smelled of marijuana. A few days later, C.J. refused a drug screen requested by probation. The probation department filed a motion to modify the dispositional decree based on C.J. being in a car with illegal substances and his refusal to submit to a drug screen. In February 2026, a hearing was held on the petition to modify, and C.J. admitted he had violated the terms of his probation. The court maintained C.J. on probation and ordered him to submit to daily call-ins for drug testing.

[4] In March, while C.J. was still on probation in JD-43, he got into an argument with his father during which he punched holes in his father's wall and hit his father in the head. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging C.J. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 35C01-2603-JD-17 (JD-17). The probation department also filed a motion to modify the dispositional decree under JD-43.

[5] A factfinding hearing on JD-17 was held in April. C.J. admitted he committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult, and that he committed these offenses while on probation in JD-43. The trial court adjudicated him a delinquent under JD-17 and found he violated the terms of his dispositional decree under JD-43. A dispositional hearing occurred the following month.

[6] At the hearing, C.J.’s father and mother stated they had safety concerns if he were to be released to their care due to his aggressive behaviors. The State indicated its recommendation was for C.J. to be committed to the DOC, noting placement in a residential facility would have been preferred but the State could not “find a facility that would take him.” Tr. Vol. II p. 88. C.J.’s probation officer, Jon Kramer, testified that the department had contacted various residential facilities to see if C.J. could be placed there, and that five of the facilities had denied him. Kramer indicated two facilities said they could “possibly” accept him but had months-long waitlists. Id. at 90. Kramer agreed with the State's recommendation that C.J. be placed in the DOC, noting he had not been cooperative with services while placed at home.

[7] The trial court found C.J. had three previous juvenile adjudications and each time he had been placed at a residential facility on probation. The court also noted C.J. was on probation and living with his father when he committed the offenses in JD-17. The court held:

If there was another option out there, I would choose it. When you look at the legal history summary contained in the predispositional report and the modification report, [ ] your crimes are crimes of violence against people close to you, family members. You've had multiple domestic batteries ․ [Y]ou've received residential treatment and here we are after the residential treatment. You were on probation at the time that you committed the offense under 2603-JD-17, which again is another domestic battery․ [W]e've exhausted options for you, [C.J.], to try and find treatment for you, but your repeated choices of violence exclude you from treatment options that the State could have available, [ ] and I have no other choice but to sentence you to the [DOC].

Id. at 95-96. C.J. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] C.J. contends the juvenile court erred in placing him in the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the juvenile court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:

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.

The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interests of the child. Id.

[9] C.J. contends the juvenile court should have ordered a less restrictive placement, such as an “out-of-state residential treatment facility” or “non-parental familial placement.”¹ Appellant's Br. p. 15. But C.J. does not identify an available facility or willing family member. Rather, the record indicates C.J. was denied placement at five residential facilities, and two others could possibly take him but had months-long waitlists. See R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (juvenile court did not err in placing juvenile delinquent in DOC where he was “denied placement in all but one residential facility” and that facility had a waitlist). Moreover, neither of his parents was willing to take him due to his “aggressive” behavior, and no other family member was identified as a placement option. Tr. Vol. II p. 94.

[10] Furthermore, less restrictive placement options had been tried with no success. C.J. had three prior juvenile adjudications for which he had been placed on probation at a residential facility. Nonetheless, he was again adjudicated a delinquent in JD-43 for battery and placed on probation. Within a month, he had violated the terms of that probation. A few months later, he again committed a battery and was adjudicated a delinquent. Due to his aggressive behaviors, he was not eligible for several potential residential facilities and neither parent was willing to house him. As the trial court found, C.J. has “exhausted” all other options. Id. at 96. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing C.J. in the DOC.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State argues C.J. waived any argument as to his placement by “agree[ing] to temporary placement in the DOC if he was unable to stay with his parents or at the [Allen County Juvenile Center (ACJC)].” Appellee's Br. p. 8. But the record does not reflect that C.J. agreed to be placed at the DOC. Rather, C.J. requested he be placed with his parents or the ACJC. He then stated “if the court does commit him to the Department of Corrections, we would ask that it be for the shortest period of time as possible until a residential treatment facility bed would become available.” Tr. Vol. II p. 91. This is not an agreement to placement at the DOC, but rather an acknowledgement of that potential outcome. C.J. has not waived argument as to his placement, and we address his claim on the merits.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.