B.S., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

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

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2023, the State filed a petition alleging eleven-year-old B.S. committed what would be Level 4 felony arson, Class A misdemeanor theft, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult, as well as habitual disobedience of a parent and leaving home without the permission of a parent. See Cause No. 01C01-2304-JD-19 (JD-19). In June, B.S. admitted to the allegations and the court adjudicated him a delinquent and placed him on probation. Over the next six months, the State filed four notices of probation violations, alleging B.S. was not abiding by curfew, not attending required counseling appointments, and not attending school. In December, B.S. admitted to the violations, and in February 2024 the court ordered him to complete a residential treatment program. B.S. completed the program in November but remained on probation.

[3] On March 31, 2025, the State filed a petition alleging B.S. was a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Level 6 felony residential entry and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 01C01-2503-JD-12 (JD-12). On July 11, the court found B.S. to be a delinquent for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult and placed him on probation for one year. In August, the court ordered B.S. to a residential treatment facility, where he stayed until March 17, 2026.

[4] Less than a month later, on April 6, B.S. stole another juvenile's bike. The State then filed a petition alleging B.S. was a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 01C01-2604-JD-9 (JD-9). The State also filed notices of probation violations and moved to modify the dispositional decrees in JD-12 and JD-19, citing the new delinquency petition among other violations, including possessing a narcotic substance, not attending school, being in possession of a BB gun, and associating with other individuals on probation. On May 1, the State filed another petition alleging B.S. was a delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 01C01-2605-JD-12.

[5] A hearing was held on May 27. B.S., now fifteen, admitted to committing the delinquent act alleged in the JD-9 petition, as well as to violating probation under JD-12 and JD-19. The State then dismissed the petition in Cause No. 01C01-2605-JD-12. The court adjudicated B.S. a delinquent under JD-9 and found he violated probation under JD-12 and JD-19.

[6] By agreement of the parties, the court proceeded immediately to a dispositional hearing. Matt Lose, B.S.’s probation officer, testified B.S. had completed two residential treatment programs and had participated in “extensive” counseling programs but continued to reoffend. Tr. p. 17. Lose stated he did not have “anything else to offer” B.S. and agreed with the State that B.S. be placed in the DOC. Id. B.S. requested he be placed on home detention. The trial court placed B.S. in the DOC, finding:

[B.S. has] four or five cases ․ we [have] run out of things we can do. Sure, I can try home detention but it just seems like it'd be a waste. You're not going to get any training through that ․ The reason why I'm choosing [DOC] ․ the big reason is because they will have programming down there that will hopefully get you straightened out versus if you're just at the house doing whatever you wanted and they [have] you in the house, great, but they're not, nobody's teaching you [anything.]

Id. at 22 (formatting altered). B.S. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Predispositional Report

[7] B.S. first contends the trial court erred in failing to order the preparation of a predispositional report. Indiana Code section 31-37-17-1 provides that upon finding that a child is delinquent, the court shall order a probation officer to complete a predispositional report that contains certain information including a statement of the needs of the child for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement; a recommendation for the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child; a statement of the department's concurrence with or its alternative proposal to the predispositional report; and the results of the validated risk and needs assessment tool the probation officer conducted on the child. The report must also contain a “description of all dispositional options considered in preparing the report[.]” Ind. Code § 31-37-17-6.1(a)(2) (2025).

[8] Here, it is undisputed that the trial court did not order the preparation of a predispositional report and that this was an error. However, the State contends, and we agree, that B.S. has waived review of this issue because he did not object below. See E.M.W. v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1283, 1284 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (juvenile waived argument regarding the State's failure to provide her with a predispositional report prior to the dispositional hearing by not raising the issue in the trial court). Further, he does not now argue fundamental error and has thus waived any claim of fundamental error. See Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1179 (Ind. 2016) (holding that where appellant “failed to raise the issue of fundamental error in his initial appellate brief[,]” such a claim was “entirely waived”).

[9] Moreover, we see no fundamental error here. A predispositional report is intended to provide information to the court to assist it in entering the dispositional order. Matter of W.H., 254 N.E.3d 549, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (discussing predispositional reports in the context of child in need of services proceedings). Even without the predispositional report, the court already had evidence before it that largely addressed the requirements of the report, including the Preliminary Inquiry Report and Lose's testimony at the hearing. As such, we cannot say the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to order the preparation of a predispositional report.

II. Placement

[10] B.S. next contends that the trial court erred in committing him to 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 interest of the child. Id.

[11] B.S. contends the juvenile court should have ordered him to a less restrictive placement, specifically home detention. But less restrictive placements had been attempted with B.S. to no avail. He resided with his family off and on throughout the cases but continued offending. And he was twice placed at a residential facility but reoffended quickly upon discharge both times.

[12] Furthermore, the record supports the trial court's determination that placement in the DOC was consistent with the safety of the community and B.S.’s best interests. B.S. had been involved with the court system since he was eleven years old, when he committed what would be Level 4 felony arson if committed by an adult, among other offenses. Thereafter, he violated probation numerous times and was placed in a residential facility. A few months after he was released from that facility, he again was adjudicated a delinquent and placed on probation, and again violated probation numerous times. He was placed in another residential facility, but within a month of being released he committed what would be Class A misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult and violated probation several times. As the juvenile court noted, it “exhausted” all other options for B.S. Tr. p. 20. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing B.S. in the DOC.¹

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   B.S. also emphasizes that the juvenile court's dispositional order states that the court reviewed the non-existent predispositional report and argues the court “rested its disposition” on this incorrect statement. Appellant's Br. p. 10. As noted above, no predispositional report was filed in this case. But we disagree that the court's disposition was based on its review of a non-existent report. The court made clear in its statement at the dispositional hearing that its decision was based on B.S.’s lengthy adjudication history, his failure to improve after stays in less restrictive placements, and the access to treatment programs DOC would provide.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.