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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judges Kenworthy and Felix concur.

Statement of the Case

[1] J.B. appeals the juvenile court's dispositional order, arguing that it was not complete and that the court's wardship of him to the Department of Correction (DOC) was erroneous. Finding that the court's dispositional order lacked a specific finding, we remand for the court to add such finding to its order. Finding no error in J.B.’s placement, we affirm.

Issues

[2] J.B. raises two issues for our review:

I. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to make a specific finding of J.B's dual status in the dispositional order.

II. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him with the DOC.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 23, 2025, in an attempt to run away from home, J.B. stole his father's wallet and drove his father's car a short distance before abandoning it. He then broke into a residential garage and stole a bike. J.B. was apprehended later that evening and placed in detention at the Youth Care Center. While in detention, J.B. was verbally hostile toward staff and refused their directives. He was placed on a twenty-four-hour lockdown and lost his privileges. Ex. Vol., p. 17 (Youth Care Center Progress Report).

[4] On July 30, the State filed a petition alleging J.B. was a delinquent child due to committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute burglary, a Level 5 felony; auto theft, a Level 6 felony; and two counts of theft as Class A misdemeanors. Appellant's App. Confid. Vol. II, pp. 16-17 (delinquency petition).

[5] At the fact-finding hearing on August 21, J.B. admitted to the two counts of theft. While the State requested that J.B. remain in detention, J.B.’s parents informed the court that they were comfortable with J.B. returning home with electronic monitoring. Id. at 4-5 (CCS). The court released J.B. from detention and placed him on electronic home detention. Id.

[6] On August 26, J.B. had an altercation with Dad when he told Dad, who was intoxicated, not to yell at Mom. Ex. Vol., pp. 21-22 (Youth Care Center Diagnostic Evaluation). Dad attempted to put J.B. in a chokehold, but J.B. pushed him, and Dad fell backward. Id. at 22. When Dad got up, he again attempted a chokehold, and the two struggled. Id. J.B.’s brother separated them, and Dad called the police. Id. J.B. was returned to detention.

[7] At a review hearing in November, the court indicated it had received a progress report dated October 21 from the detention center. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 18. The report indicated that on October 13, during morning free time in the detention center, J.B. had initiated a confrontation with another resident. Ex. Vol., p. 17 (Youth Care Center Progress Report). J.B. physically resisted staff intervention and refused orders to return to his room. Id. As a result, he was placed on a forty-eight-hour lockdown. Id. Later that same day, J.B. pulled a smoke alarm from the wall and threw it at a light fixture. Id. at 18. He was issued an additional six hours of lockdown for destruction of property. Id. And just a few hours later, J.B. ripped an intercom call box from the wall and attempted to break the light fixture in his room. Id. Not long after, J.B. attempted to escape from his room. Id. It required several staff members to intervene and return him to his room. Id. These incidents resulted in additional lockdown hours. Id.

[8] The report further stated that on October 17, J.B. engaged in a physical altercation with another resident, threw multiple chairs, one of which struck a staff member, and shouted death threats toward another resident. Id. He was placed on another seventy-two-hour lockdown and lost all privileges. Id. The State also noted that the property damage caused by J.B. was estimated to be $4,000. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 17. Given these circumstances, the court maintained J.B.’s placement in detention. Id. at 23.

[9] At the disposition hearing two weeks later, the court indicated there had been another incident involving J.B. at the detention center. Id. at 28. However, after giving J.B. extensive warnings, the juvenile court released him from detention into his parents’ custody with electronic monitoring and continued the disposition hearing. Id. at 28-30, 40-41.

[10] Following a disposition hearing on December 4, the court awarded wardship of J.B. to the DOC. J.B. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Dual Status

[11] Stated simply, a dual status child is a child who has had contact with or entered both the child welfare system as a CHINS (“Child in Need of Services”) and the juvenile justice system as a delinquent child. See Ind. Code § 31-41-1-2. In a delinquency proceeding, Indiana Code section 31-37-18-9 requires the court to include specific findings in its dispositional order, one of which concerns whether the child is a dual status child under Indiana Code section 31-41. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a)(6).

[12] J.B. asserts that the juvenile court erred by failing to include in its dispositional order a specific finding regarding his standing as a dual status child. While J.B. is correct that the court's order does not comply with Section 31-37-18-9(a)(6) in that it does not make a specific finding as to his status, the record is clear that he is a dual status child. Both J.B.’s probation officer and the State informed the court at the disposition hearing that J.B. is a dual status child, and they requested that his predispositional report be amended to reflect that status. See Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 47, 48, 53.

[13] This deficiency in the court's order, however, does not rise to the level of reversible error. We accordingly remand for the juvenile court to add a finding to the dispositional decree stating that J.B. is a dual status child. See, e.g., F.H. v. State, No. 22A-JV-1969, at *3(Ind. Ct. App. March 2, 2023) (mem.) (determining that juvenile court erred when it failed to include finding in dispositional order that indicated F.H. was dual status child and remanding for purpose of adding such finding to dispositional order).

II. Placement

[14] J.B. next contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him at the DOC rather than in a less restrictive setting. This Court has explained the way in which we review a juvenile court's disposition as follows:

The choice of a specific disposition for a delinquent child is within the discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and a statutory policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. We may overturn the trial court's disposition order only if we find that it has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision 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.

J.J. v. State, 925 N.E.2d 796, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting A.M.R. v. State, 741 N.E.2d 727, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied.

[15] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 provides as follows:

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.

[16] The disposition hearing was held on December 4, 2025. The State's evidence consisted of the predispositional report, the diagnostic evaluation from the Youth Care Center, and video of an incident at the Youth Care Center. The diagnostic evaluation recommended placement at a moderate to high structure residential treatment program. Ex. Vol., p. 33. As an alternative, an intensive day treatment program or a community based residential program was recommended, if risk to the community could be safely managed with appropriate supervision. Id. at 34. If J.B. posed a safety risk or demonstrated repeated failure in less restrictive programs, the Youth Care Center recommended a long term secure placement. Id.

[17] It is important to note that the diagnostic evaluation was prepared in September. The following month, the progress report was issued detailing J.B.’s violent and destructive behavior at the detention center in October. The report provided a “Behavioral Overview” for J.B.’s 111 days of detention, which stated:

[J.B.]’s behavior throughout his detention has been volatile, aggressive, and destructive. He has demonstrated a persistent inability or unwillingness to regulate his anger, comply with directives, or engage in positive behavioral change despite repeated interventions by staff. His actions have frequently jeopardized the safety of staff and peers and caused significant property damage within the facility. [J.B.]’s conduct has necessitated multiple lockdowns, including several 48-hour and 72-hour sanctions, and he has spent a considerable portion of his stay under such restrictions due to ongoing behavioral issues.

Id. at 17.

[18] The report also contained sections entitled “Behavioral Assessment” and “Conclusion and Recommendation.” These summaries provided:

Behavioral Assessment

Despite repeated interventions, redirection, and disciplinary consequences, [J.B.] continues to demonstrate poor impulse control, aggressive tendencies, and defiance toward authority. He exhibits frequent verbal hostility, property destruction, and physically aggressive behaviors toward staff and peers.

While staff have made consistent efforts to provide structure, counseling, and de-escalation, [J.B.]’s response has been minimal. His actions suggest that he either cannot or will not manage his anger appropriately within this environment. His continued volatility poses an ongoing safety concern for both staff and other residents.

Conclusion and Recommendation

It is the opinion of the leadership of the Youth Care Center that Resident [J.B.] requires for rehabilitative purposes a highly controlled and structured environment, beyond what regular detention can safely provide. His pattern of aggression, destruction, and noncompliance indicates the need for placement in a more secure, behaviorally focused facility equipped to manage residents with significant anger control and behavioral regulation challenges.

The Youth Care Center remains committed to the safety and rehabilitation of all residents but must acknowledge that [J.B.]’s continued behavior exceeds the therapeutic and security capacities of this program.

Id. at 18-19. At the review hearing in November, the court acknowledged receiving this report. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 18.

[19] The predispositional report was prepared by the probation department in November. The report indicated that in 2023 J.B. was charged with committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute four counts of battery against a public safety officer, Level 6 felonies; intimidation as a Level 6 felony; battery as a B misdemeanor; resisting law enforcement as an A misdemeanor; and disorderly conduct as a B misdemeanor. Ex. Vol., p. 5. He admitted to the four counts of felony battery, was adjudicated delinquent, and was placed at the DOC in December 2023. Id. at 5, 14. While at the DOC, J.B. “struggled to follow the rules ․ which ultimately extended his release date on several occasions.” Id. at 14. J.B. was released from the DOC on July 21, 2025, and committed these acts just two days later while he was on probation for his first adjudication. Id. The probation department concluded that J.B. was in need of structured residential care and recommended his placement at the DOC. Id. at 15.

[20] Moreover, J.B.’s probation officer testified at the disposition hearing that she had exhausted available alternatives. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 51. She testified that, although her first recommendation would be residential treatment, there were no secure residential facilities that could accommodate J.B. Id. She explained that at least seven residential facilities denied J.B. placement due to his behavior, and the other few either were not accepting males or were full. Id.

[21] At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, the juvenile court provided J.B. with yet another opportunity to show that he could conduct himself appropriately for his best interest and the safety of the community without the need for placement at the DOC. The court stated:

[J.B.], I'm going to address the last two weeks. You've done what I've asked you to do. With that being said, it's two weeks. So where I'm at is I'm going to issue a continuance of this hearing to mid-January. Keep the record open just to see what else occurs between now and then. And then I'll enter disposition in mid-January. Because you made it this far with two weeks. Show me that you can go beyond two weeks. I don't think two weeks is enough for me to base any decision, but it's a start. It's a good start. But we got to get further, and I think you can do it, but you've got to show me that you can.

Id. at 106.

[22] At a “check-in” hearing on January 12, 2026, J.B.’s probation officer testified that J.B.’s mother had called the police because J.B. and Dad had engaged in a physical altercation. Id. at 122. On January 22, the court held the final disposition hearing. At that time, J.B. was back in detention. J.B.’s probation officer outlined the circumstances that resulted in J.B.’s current detention. She testified that, during the prior week, J.B. overdosed and spent five days at an acute facility. Id. at 131. When he was released, he went home and took more medication. Id. He was transported to the hospital and was then medically released to a treatment facility where a new incident took place, and the police were called. Id. The social worker informed the court that the residential facilities were still denying placement due to J.B.’s behavior. Id. Two facilities had wait lists, but they would not accept any further referrals because their wait lists were so long. Id. The social worker indicated that the wait was well over five months. Id.

[23] The Department of Child Services representative informed the court that J.B. told her “very clearly” that he did not want to go home. Id. at 134. He stated that he did not want to go to the DOC but that it would be the “less dangerous” route. Id. J.B. further informed her that he was fearful he would hurt or kill someone. Id. at 135. J.B.’s counsel additionally indicated to the court that J.B. had expressed the same sentiments to her. Id.

[24] On appeal, J.B. asserts the DOC is not in his best interest because this latest occurrence was merely a “one-off” in which he was simply going through a mental health crisis due to an issue with his medication. Appellant's Br. p. 15. However, before awarding wardship of J.B. to the DOC, the court explained the rationale for its decision:

So in terms of detention, I do find that detention is essential to protect the child and the community. I think, [J.B.], at this point, I've given you as many opportunities as I possibly can, I think, at this point, as far as trying to make other options available. I agree that DOC is probably not our best option, but unfortunately, it's our only option that I have that keeps you-that I have the best chance of keeping you safe. We have tried literally almost everything else and there's just nothing else. I'm out of options. I mean, there may be a significant mental health component, but we had you at a mental health facility and you got kicked out for your behavior. I just, I'm out of options.

So I do find that commitment ․ to the Department of Correction for an indefinite sentence is the least restrictive alternative that is available to the Court at this time to keep you and the community safe.

Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 136-37.

[25] Based on the evidence, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in ordering J.B. to be placed in the DOC.

Conclusion

[26] We agree that the juvenile court erred when it failed to include a finding in its dispositional order that indicated J.B. is a dual status child. Accordingly, we affirm and remand for modification of the order to include that finding. We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded wardship of J.B. to the DOC based on all the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's dispositional order.

[27] Affirmed and remanded.

Najam, Senior Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and Felix, J., concur.