I.M., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] I.M. appeals the juvenile court's order committing her to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 21, 2025, the State filed a petition alleging I.M. was a delinquent child for committing an act which if committed by an adult would constitute possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. On December 12, 2025, the court entered a Dispositional Decree finding that I.M. admitted that she committed the act as alleged. The court awarded wardship of I.M. to the DOC for housing in the Indiana Girls School or any correctional facility for children determined appropriate by the DOC and suspended the commitment to juvenile probation for a period of twelve months. The court ordered that the conditions of probation include that I.M. attend school every day unless she has a written excuse, and that she obey all laws, consent to reasonable searches, and pay court costs.

[3] On February 19, 2026, the State filed a Petition for Revocation of Probation alleging that I.M. violated her probation, was arrested on February 16, 2026, for battery on both of her parents, and there was a risk of I.M. fleeing the jurisdiction or causing harm to others because she was a recent runaway. On March 12, 2026, the court held a hearing, entered an order finding that I.M. admitted to the allegations, and scheduled a dispositional hearing.

[4] On March 26, 2026, the court held a dispositional hearing. Probation Officer Merri Eder testified and recommended that I.M. be admitted to the Indiana Girls School through the DOC because of her behavior and the incident in the parents’ home during which I.M. battered her mother. Probation Officer Eder indicated that she had reached out to the five facilities in Indiana that conduct diagnostic evaluations and all of the facilities denied the evaluation “based off [I.M.’s] behavior.” Transcript Volume II at 8. When asked, “with that in mind then, the scenario appears for us today basically a choice between girl's school and mom and dad's home,” she answered, “That's correct.” Id. She testified that “we've continued to struggle with manipulative behavior between [I.M.] and her mother,” “recently, [I.M.] has displayed some frustration and manipulative behavior with myself as her probation officer,” and I.M. also “received an incident report while in detention on March 18th for her behavior while in detention, being very vocal, cussing,” and “not following the rules of staff.” Id. On cross-examination, Probation Officer Eder indicated that “there was some reference to a diagnosis of bipolar in [I.M.’s] records,” but she did not think “that's ever been a formal diagnosis.” Id. at 10.

[5] I.M.’s mother testified that I.M. had told her that she (I.M.’s mother) deserved to be hit. She testified that she did not feel comfortable with I.M. returning home and that “[t]his last time she hit me, ran away, and was gone for three hours.” Id. at 14. She also stated, “I'm not just in fear for the safety of what could happen in my home between me, my husband, and her, but I'm worried about her 10-year-old brother who feels that he has to lock himself in his room when she is home.” Id. On redirect examination, when asked how many times police had been called to her home when I.M. was home, she answered, “Too many to count.” Id. at 16. I.M.’s mother also mentioned I.M. stealing and attempting to overdose.

[6] Upon questioning by the court, I.M.’s mother indicated that I.M. had “acute stays” where she made remarks about feeling unsafe in the home or feeling suicidal and that, “[i]n addition to those acute stays, she's done a six-month residential at St. Vincent Anderson and in the last year has done two residentials at Indiana Center for Recovery.” Id. at 17. I.M.’s mother also testified that, prior to being placed on probation, I.M. had been expelled from school after being caught with a nicotine vape and a THC vape, she was “in a dark place mentally,” and she grabbed a knife “and tried splitting her wrists.” Id. at 18. I.M.’s father testified that, “[a]s much as I want to say I want [I.M.] to come home, I think girl's school would be the better option․ my main concern being her brother in our house.” Id. at 20.

[7] On March 31, 2026, the court entered an order awarding wardship of I.M. to the DOC for housing in any correctional facility for children or any community-based correctional facility for children. The court noted that I.M. had eight “acute stays,” she had two placements, one of which failed, violence and “continued conflict” in the home, and “concerns expressed by the parents.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 80. On April 7, 2026, the court entered an amended order finding that I.M. needed protection, her continued behavioral issues required that she be placed for her protection and the protection of others, reasonable efforts had been made by the probation department to prevent or eliminate the need for I.M.’s removal, and reasonable efforts were made by the probation department or other service providers including approximately eight prior acute placements, two prior residential placements, and one prior placement resulting in removal.

[8] On April 15, 2026, I.M. filed a Motion to Correct Errors alleging that the court's order was excessive because it constituted severe punishment when a less restrictive remedy could have been used. On April 27, 2026, the court denied the motion.

Discussion

[9] I.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing her to the DOC where there were less restrictive options available that would have provided rehabilitative services. She asserts that she had only one juvenile delinquency finding, she felt her overall stay in the juvenile detention center went well, she was completing her schoolwork, and she had been restored to the highest conduct level for good behavior. Without citation to authority, she argues that, “[w]hile her behavioral struggles at home and suspected bipolar symptoms present genuine challenges, these are mental health and behavioral needs requiring structured therapeutic intervention – not incarceration in a state penal facility.” Appellant's Brief at 12.

[10] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); see also K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (applying abuse of discretion standard where juvenile challenged modification of placement to DOC following her violation of terms of suspended commitment), trans. denied. However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6, which provides that, “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child,” the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that is “in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available” and “close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child”; least interferes with family autonomy; is least disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian. Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available applies only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. 2007) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6).

[11] The record reveals that I.M. admitted to being a delinquent child for committing an act which if committed by an adult would constitute possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. After being placed on probation, I.M. admitted to the allegations that she violated the conditions of her probation by battering her parents and being a runaway. Probation Officer Eder recommended that I.M. be admitted to the Indiana Girls School through the DOC because of her behavior. Five facilities in Indiana refused to conduct a diagnostic evaluation of I.M. due to her behavior. I.M. received an incident report while in detention on March 18th for her behavior. I.M.’s parents both believed that the Indiana Girls School was the better option than I.M. returning home due to concerns for her younger brother's safety. In light of the record, we conclude that the court's ordered placement is consistent with I.M.’s best interests and the safety of the community. We find no abuse of discretion.

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order.

[13] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and Scheele, J., concur.