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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] S.D. (“S.D.”) appeals the juvenile court's order that committed her to the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). She specifically argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed her to the DOC for an indeterminate placement. Concluding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed S.D. to the DOC for an indeterminate placement.

Facts

[3] In November 2025, the juvenile court placed fourteen-year-old S.D. in shelter care at Paddock View Residential Center (“Paddock View”) after she had admitted to the status offense of leaving home without permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian. On November 2, 2025, S.D. ran away from the facility and fled from the officer who was sent to return her to the facility. After being returned to Paddock View, S.D. damaged wall decorations and board games resulting in damage totaling seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars.

[4] Based on S.D.’s actions at Paddock View, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that S.D. was a delinquent child for committing acts that would constitute two acts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult. The State also alleged that she had committed the status offense of leaving home without permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian. The juvenile court removed S.D. from Paddock View and placed her at the Johnson County Detention Center (“the Center”).¹

[5] During S.D.’s initial hearing, S.D. admitted that she had committed acts that would constitute one act of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult and that she had committed the status offense of leaving home without permission. The juvenile court dismissed the other allegation of resisting law enforcement.² Additionally, at this hearing, S.D.’s mother (“S.D.’s mother”) commented that S.D. being detained was preventing S.D. from being injured or injuring someone else, because S.D. gets “out of control and doesn't make safe choices.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 8).

[6] While awaiting her disposition at the Center, S.D. had a multitude of behavioral issues and repeatedly threatened to harm herself and others. S.D. had “six to seven incident reports a day[,]” and “the other girls had to ․ purchase[ ] ear plugs for them to sleep” due to S.D.’s “loud” threats and behavior. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Based on S.D.’s behavior, the Center requested to remove her, which is “very rare.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21).

[7] The juvenile court ordered a predispositional report, which revealed that, at some point before August 2025, S.D. had attended a “ ‘locked down’ ” school in California that had been meant to “address[ ] her behaviors.” (App. Vol. 2 at 38). However, during the fall of 2025, after S.D. had arrived in Indiana, she had been placed in a less restrictive school environment. At that same time, S.D. began having issues in school, including leaving class, disrupting, stealing, and yelling at and pushing teachers. In regard to S.D.’s prior treatment, the predispositional report revealed that S.D. had spent fifteen months in a residential treatment center and had been discharged due to no progress being made. S.D. also has had stays in multiple inpatient units, as well as in home services and wrap-around counseling. Moreover, the report noted that “[e]ven while on medications her behaviors have been erratic, disorderly[,] and difficult to control.” (App. Vol. 2 at 38). Additionally, the predispositional report indicated that S.D.’s mother had stated that she did not feel safe having S.D. return home due to her violent episodes and lack of response to treatment. Further, the report noted that S.D. had a volatile relationship with her older sister, her father, and her mother, with the target of violence tending to be her sister.

[8] At the December 2025 dispositional hearing, a probation officer (“the probation officer”) testified that S.D. had been referred to, and rejected from, fourteen residential treatment centers in Indiana. One residential treatment facility had initially been willing to consider S.D. until it had seen the Center's report about S.D.’s behavior while at the Center. The probation officer recommended that the juvenile court commit S.D. to an indeterminate period at the DOC because “[S.D.] knows what she can do to get kicked out of places” and that “at DOC[,] she would be forced to remain in that treatment facility to do the treatment and not get kicked out.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 22). Additionally, the juvenile court heard testimony from S.D.’s mother that she did not feel that she could safely have S.D. home until S.D.’s behavior improved.

[9] At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court committed S.D. to the DOC for an indeterminate placement, stating that “I'm not aware that I really have any other options at this point in time, ․ except for ․ commitment to the Department of Correction[ ].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). The juvenile court's dispositional order provided, in relevant part, as follows:

[S.D.’s] history, while not lengthy, has been turbulent. [She] was originally placed in Paddock View for shelter care after leaving home without permission and later fled the facility prior to returning to court. Once located, [S.D.] resisted law enforcement during attempts to detain her. Once [she] returned to the facility, she proceeded to “destroy the unit” and caused “a serious disturbance” within the facility․ Johnson County requested her removal from their facility due to various behavioral issues including threats of fighting, threats of harm to self, attempts to harm self, verbal aggression towards residents and staff, noncompliance with staff orders. [S.D.] was placed on administrative lockdown at least three (3) times and punitive lockdown at least once. [She] has been in residential placement through Medicaid on several occasions including inpatient acute and long term residential services in both Indiana and California The most recent of which was at the Resource Treatment Center where she spent 15 months. [S.D.] was discharged after making no progress․ Mother wants [S.D.] at home but stated that it is just not a safe environment when [she] is at home. Mother further stated that she feels like the family has exhausted all available resources and is not aware of any other options at this time. Attempts to locate other placements have been unsuccessful. All have denied the child's admission because of her behavioral issues.

(App. Vol. 2 at 6-7). The juvenile court further stated that “[S.D.] represents an ongoing threat to the community due to her continued behaviors. There have been several types of interventions attempted with the child, but she has continued to demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance and participation in harmful behaviors[,]” and that “[a]ttempts at placement and detention have been unsuccessful.” (App. Vol. 2 at 8). The juvenile court's dispositional order specifically provided that it was awarding wardship to the DOC pursuant to Indiana Code § 31-37-19-6. Thereafter, S.D. filed a motion to correct error, which the juvenile court denied.

[10] S.D. now appeals.

Decision

[11] S.D. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing her to the DOC for an indeterminate placement. Specifically, S.D. argues that “her behavior does not warrant sending her to the Indiana Department of Correction[ ].” (S.D.’s Br. at 10). We disagree.

[12] The choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent child is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). A juvenile disposition will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court's action is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Id. Thus, the juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. Id.

[13] Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 provides:

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.

[14] Pursuant to this statute, the juvenile court “is only required to consider the least restrictive placement if that placement comports with the safety needs of the community and the child's best interests.” J.B. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 714, 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing I.C. § 31-37-18-6) (emphasis in original). “Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[15] Here, the record reveals that S.D. had been given an opportunity in a less restrictive placement at Paddock View, and she was unsuccessful in that placement. Moreover, S.D.’s behavior while in that placement was so abhorrent that Paddock View discharged her from its facility. Thereafter, she was placed at the Center, and S.D.’s unacceptable and disruptive behavior continued to the point that the Center requested to remove her. Also, due to S.D.’s behavioral issues, fourteen residential treatment centers rejected the State's referral requests to place S.D. Finally, S.D.’s own mother did not feel safe having S.D. return to her home due to her outbursts. Given the facts and circumstances of this case, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by granting wardship of S.D. to the DOC for an indeterminate placement. See, e.g., K.A., 775 N.E.2d at 387 (concluding that there was no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court when it modified the juvenile's disposition to commitment to the Department of Correction after the juvenile had failed to reform her behavior at other placements); M.R. v. State, 605 N.E.2d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (explaining that “[t]here are times in juvenile proceedings when the best interest of the juvenile and society require commitment” to a juvenile facility).³

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that Indiana Code § 31-37-7-4 allows for a juvenile court to place a juvenile in another county's juvenile detention facility when the “placement of the [juvenile] in a comparable facility with adequate services located in the [juvenile's] county of residence is unavailable or the [juvenile's] county of residence does not have an appropriate comparable facility with adequate services.”

2.   At some point later in the proceedings, the juvenile court also dismissed the leaving home status offense.

3.   We also reject S.D.’s suggestion that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding wardship for an indeterminate period. The juvenile court's order specified that it was awarding wardship to the DOC for an indeterminate period under Indiana Code § 31-37-19-6. Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained that Indiana Code § 31-37-19-6 “provides for, among other things, an indeterminate commitment of a delinquent child” and that “[o]ne option for the [juvenile] court under section 6 is to award wardship of the child to the DOC.” D.C. v. State, 958 N.E.2d 757, 759 (Ind. 2011). When a juvenile court awards wardship of a juvenile to the DOC under this statute, “the DOC determines both the placement of the juvenile and the duration of the placement.” Id. Accordingly, we find no abuse of the juvenile court's discretion in this matter.Additionally, we note that at the end of S.D.’s brief, her counsel briefly mentions that S.D. could potentially be released in July 2026 and questions whether the placement issue would be moot. However, the record on appeal does not indicate that she was released. Therefore, we need not address S.D.’s counsel's presupposition.

Pyle, Judge.

[17] May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.