Opinion
23A-JV-2796
06-11-2024
A.W., Appellant-Respondent, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Renee M. Ortega Lake County Juvenile Public Defender's Office Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge The Honorable Jeffrey Miller, Magistrate Trial Court Cause Nos. 45D06-2212-JD-646, 45D06-2308-JD-548
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Renee M. Ortega Lake County Juvenile Public Defender's Office Crown Point, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ROBB, SENIOR JUDGE.
Case Synopsis
[¶1] A.W. was adjudicated a delinquent child after he admitted to committing what would have been Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult in one action, and for committing what would have been two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult in another. The juvenile court granted wardship of A.W. to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). A.W. appeals his disposition, contending the trial court abused its discretion by failing to place him in the least restrictive placement. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On December 8, 2022, A.W., a student at Eagle Park School, and his grandmother, who was his legal guardian, met with staff members to discuss A.W.'s future home learning. After the meeting, A.W. collected his belongings. He then became angry, threw his belongings to the floor, and ran toward another classroom. A staff member attempted to stop A.W. from entering the classroom because he was making threats toward another student. A.W. threw that staff member to the floor, causing an injury to her left wrist. A.W. punched another staff member in the stomach. When four other staff members restrained him, A.W. struck them with his fists, elbows, and knees.
[¶3] The State requested and was granted permission to file a delinquency petition in Cause Number 45D06-2212-JD-646 (JD-646), alleging that A.W. was delinquent for committing six acts that would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury if committed by an adult. During processing, A.W., who was sixteen years old at the time, stated he had a history of not obeying his curfew and would leave home without permission. He also reported his membership in the Insane Black Disciple Gang. He had a history of sexually inappropriate behavior with females, hitting and spitting at others, suicidal ideations, and psychiatric inpatient stays. He also reported diagnoses for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. A.W. was released to in-home detention.
[¶4] On January 31, 2023, A.W. admitted to two counts of battery in JD-646, and the juvenile court placed him on probation for six months. The court's order required A.W. to participate in individual and family counseling and a day reporting program.
[¶5] On February 21st, the State moved to modify A.W.'s disposition because he had left his grandmother's home without permission on February 17th, and told her he would return on February 20th. A.W.'s whereabouts were unknown at the time the State filed its petition. And service providers had not started their services due to A.W.'s absence. The juvenile court modified A.W.'s disposition to home detention.
[¶6] In early April, A.W.'s grandmother reported that he had stolen $400 from her accounts over the course of a few days and believed that he had used the money to purchase illegal drugs. She stated that during the prior weekend A.W. was "wasted," and she believed that his friends were bringing illegal drugs to him or he was sneaking them into the house while she was at work. Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 76. She said the house smelled like marijuana even though A.W. attempted to mask the smell by burning incense. A.W.'s grandmother asked for him to be detained because of his increasingly disrespectful behavior and her resulting inability to enforce his compliance. He was taken into custody and was ordered to submit to drug screens. During his detention, he was involved in two physical altercations.
[¶7] On May 10th, the probation department recommended more intensive in-home services. The court granted the request and again modified A.W.'s dispositional decree, this time to order A.W. to participate in services provided by Circle Around Families. Those services included case management, individual and family therapy, substance abuse counseling, random drug screens, tutoring, and mentoring. He was released to his grandmother's care and his probation was extended by six months.
[¶8] On August 9th, the State once again requested to modify A.W.'s disposition noting that he left his home without permission with an unknown person on August 8th. Additionally, A.W. tested positive for marijuana during drug screens taken on June 12th, July 5th, 14th, 18th, and 27th. He also failed to attend his day reporting program on July 10th, 13th, 17th, 19th, and August 3rd.
[¶9] Prior to the hearing on the motion to modify, A.W. was detained for committing new criminal acts. On August 26th, A.W. threw a rock into the window of an auto shop and attempted to take some keys. He was on the property and went inside the building without permission. When law enforcement officers arrived, they saw two masked males running away from them. A.W.'s left hand was bleeding when he was apprehended.
[¶10] The State requested and was granted permission to file a delinquency petition in Cause Number 45D06-2308-JD-548 (JD-548). The petition alleged that A.W. committed what would be Level 5 felony burglary, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult. A.W. admitted to committing resisting law enforcement and criminal mischief, with no agreement as to the disposition. A.W. also admitted that he violated probation in JD-646 by committing the new criminal acts and by failing to fully participate in court-ordered services.
[¶11] A.W. had been offered home-based services, wrap-around services, and day reporting, but refused to participate in those services. A.W. committed new criminal acts leading to the charges filed in JD-548 while on probation and while a modification petition was pending. He had tested positive for marijuana on six occasions and his whereabouts were often unknown by his grandmother.
[¶12] On September 16th, a psychiatric evaluation was completed. A.W. was diagnosed with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, persistent depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, and cannabis use disorder. Although psychotherapy was recommended because A.W. would benefit from those services, the psychiatrist noted that A.W. was "likely to be nonadherent." Exhibit Vol. I, p. 4 (Exhibit A; Psychiatric Evaluation). The psychiatrist further observed that A.W. was "a high risk of engaging in further criminal activities" and was "likely to be negatively influenced by his peers." Id.
[¶13] Probation recommended that A.W., who was now seventeen years old, be made a ward of the DOC. On three separate occasions, the probation department sent out requests for in-patient treatment at the most appropriate facilities for A.W.'s needs. All five of the programs declined to accept A.W. as of the time of the September 26th dispositional hearing. A.W.'s grandmother told the court that she preferred that A.W. be placed on intensive probation in the home. The juvenile court took the matter under advisement.
[¶14] The trial court directed the probation department to explore options for an out-of-state placement for A.W. However, the probation department explained that all in-state options must be exhausted prior to considering out-of-state placements. The probation department's October 11th status report reflected that eleven different facilities rejected A.W., with Bashor being the only program with immediate bed availability. The juvenile court issued its dispositional order on October 26th, granting wardship of A.W. to the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
[¶15] A.W. appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional order, contending that the court abused its discretion by failing to "enter a disposition that satisfied the standards contained in Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 [(1997)]." Appellant's Br. p. 8. More specifically, A.W. argues that he "clearly would have benefitted from a residential placement, but the Court declined to send him to Bashor once it was clear that they would accept him." Id. at 11. And he additionally claims that he "deserved to be sent to residential placement as the least restrictive placement available." Id.
[¶16] "An abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to a juvenile court's disposition of a delinquent child." G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). "A court abuses its discretion by misinterpreting the law or 'if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.'" Id. (quoting T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023)).
[¶17] Once a child is determined to be a delinquent child pursuant to either Indiana Code sections 31-37-1-1 (1997) or 31-37-2-1 (1997), the juvenile court is required to hold a dispositional hearing to, among other things, consider the alternatives for the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-1 (1997). If the child is determined to be delinquent pursuant to Section 31-37-1-1, as A.W. was in the present case, the juvenile court has the choice of several dispositions and may choose more than one. See Ind. Code §§ 31-37-19-5 (2012), -6 (2009). Examples of disposition alternatives are supervision of the child by the probation department, outpatient treatment, emancipation of the child, and community service. See Ind. Code § 31-37-19-5(b). Still others are wardship to the DOC, confinement in a juvenile detention facility, and placement in a shelter care facility. See Ind. Code § 31-37-19-6(b).
[¶18] The choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008). The juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. Id. This discretion is, however, 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. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019), trans. denied; see also Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (1997) (setting forth factors juvenile court must consider when entering a dispositional decree). We will reverse a juvenile disposition only for an abuse of discretion, which 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 drawn therefrom. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 217 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005).
[¶19] A.W. argues that the court "declined to send him to Bashor once it was clear that they would accept him." Appellant's Br. p. 11. He claims that the juvenile court "decided to punish [him] as opposed to trying to rehabilitate him." Id.
[¶20] "Although the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement, it allows for a more restrictive placement under certain circumstances." M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. "Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement because commitment to a public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "While commitment to the DOC should be treated as a last resort, that option may be appropriate when consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child." G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 190 (internal citation and quotations omitted).
[¶21] Here, during the juvenile court's supervision, A.W.: (1) continued to leave home without permission, for multiple days; (2) consumed marijuana; and (3) failed to engage in the intensive homebased services provided to him. He informed one of his service providers that he slept during his day reporting because he was "hanging out" the previous night. Tr. Vol. II, p. 22. And during the pendency of a modification petition, A.W. committed additional crimes, one of which was a felony, by breaking through the window of a business, entering the business in search of keys he could take, and running from law enforcement. These factors support the juvenile court's choice of the DOC as the appropriate disposition.
[¶22] The availability of housing at Bashor, a less-restrictive placement, does not render the court's decision an abuse of discretion. We observed in R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 391 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010), that "Indiana Code section 31-37-186 states that placement in the least restrictive setting is required only '[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.'" And in K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002), trans. denied, we reiterated that "'[i]n some instances, confinement may be one of the most effective rehabilitative techniques available' when a juvenile is exposed to the type of placement [he] would encounter were [he] to continue with [his] poor behavior." (quoting Madaras v. State, 425 N.E.2d 670, 672 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981)).
[¶23] In the present case, A.W., who is nearing adulthood, refuses to engage in services provided to him, refuses to obey his legal guardian, and beyond failing to conform his behavior, has escalated his poor behavior, despite his contacts with the juvenile court system. And his psychiatric evaluation indicated that he was a high risk of engaging in further criminal activities. We cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion here.
Conclusion
[¶24] In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court's choice of disposition.
[¶25] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.