Opinion
24A-JV-1698
12-19-2024
E.B., Appellant-Petitioner, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Scott H. Duerring South Bend, Indiana. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Catherine Brizzi 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 St. Joseph Probate Court Trial Court Cause Nos. 71J01-2304-JD-104, 71J01-2404-JD-134, The Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge The Honorable Graham C. Polando, Magistrate.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Scott H. Duerring South Bend, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
Judge Vaidik and Senior Judge Crone concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] E.B. appeals the juvenile court's order committing him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). E.B. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion because ordering medications "to control his anger and impulsivity" would have ensured a less restrictive and more appropriate placement. Appellant's Brief at 4.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On April 18, 2023, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that thirteen-year-old E.B.-who was living with his mother and siblings in South Bend- committed two counts of battery, a Class B misdemeanor, if committed as an adult. E.B. subsequently admitted to one count of battery, and the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent and placed him on indefinite probation. The conditions of E.B.'s probation included keeping his mother informed of his whereabouts "at all times," following his mother's rules, and obeying all city, county, state and federal laws. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 42.
[¶4] On September 5, 2023, a probation violation report was filed after E.B. entered a classroom at his South Bend middle school without permission and stole $60 and a USB device. On September 18, E.B.'s mother reported to the probation department that E.B. was constantly leaving the house without her permission. Three days later, E.B. was suspended from school for two days for walking out of class.
[¶5] Following a hearing in mid-October, the juvenile court continued E.B.'s probation and placed him on home detention for sixty days. On October 24, the probation department received notice that E.B. had left his home for several hours without permission. The next day, community corrections staff conducted a home visit and informed E.B. that "any further violations could result in court action and/or placement in detention." Id. at 65. Approximately one week later, E.B. left his house and spent nearly two hours in unapproved locations. E.B. was also suspended from school for striking another student and swearing at the assistant principal.
[¶6] On November 8, the juvenile court held a detention hearing and ordered E.B. detained at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center (the Center). It also ordered E.B. to undergo a psychological evaluation. On November 16, 2023, E.B. received a behavior incident report after he used profanity and refused to follow instructions from the Center's staff members. Four days later, E.B. received another incident report for insubordination, swearing at staff, and fighting with another resident.
[¶7] Over the next several days, E.B. received incident reports for stealing food, swearing, and being disruptive. On one occasion, E.B. wrote phrases including, "Fu*k, Free me" on the walls of his room. Id. at 110. E.B. also threatened to kill a Center staff member, and he told a female supervisor that he was going to "beat her ass." Id. at 112. E.B. received a total of twenty-three behavior-related incident reports while at the Center.
[¶8] On December 14, 2023, Dr. Jeff Burnett conducted E.B.'s psychological examination. Dr. Burnett recommended that E.B. be referred to a psychiatrist to determine whether medication might address his impulsivity and aggressiveness. Dr. Burnett determined that E.B. was not presently "curbing his impulses and his respect for rules and authority." Id. at 123. E.B. denied that he needed help, and he had previously refused to take any prescribed medications.
[¶9] The juvenile court held a modification hearing on December 26, 2023, and ordered E.B. released from secure detention and placed on home detention with a suspended commitment to the DOC. At some point thereafter, E.B. went to a Target store, stole some snacks, and sold them to his classmates. E.B. was also suspended from school for possessing a vaping device. It was determined that E.B. had completed only five of twenty-eight lessons in a court-ordered life skills building program, consistently canceling weekly lessons with no valid excuse.
[¶10] Prior to a scheduled April 30, 2024 review hearing, E.B. was detained and charged with intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor, had the offense been committed by an adult, after he told his mother that he was going to "shoot up" the house and "slaughter" everyone inside. Transcript Vol. 2 at 36-39. E.B. told a responding police officer that he was in a gang and refused to attend school because he was "beefing with too many people." Id. at 40-41.
[¶11] During a hearing on May 17, 2024, E.B. admitted to the intimidation allegation. E.B.'s mother explained to the juvenile court that she would not feel safe if E.B. was permitted to return home and that he should remain in detention. The juvenile court directed the probation department to make referrals to three residential facilities that might be appropriate for E.B. However, none of those facilities were "willing to accept E.B." Id. at 73.
[¶12] At a subsequent modification hearing, E.B.'s mother testified that she did not believe that E.B. was "genuine" or "ready" to come home, and she did not want to feel threatened and unsafe. Id. at 76. On June 18, 2024, the juvenile court conducted a dispositional/modification hearing and awarded wardship of E.B. to the DOC. The juvenile court's order provided in relevant part that
Reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal, including: [E.B.] was provided with two separate home-based casework referrals and the opportunity to engage in a life skill building program. In addition, a psychological evaluation was completed to determine the area of needs. [E.B.'s] mother has taken him to a doctor's appointment to consider medication management.
These efforts did not prevent removal of [E.B.] because [E.B.] continues to engage in criminal behavior, disregard reasonable rules of the home, and allegedly committed a new delinquent act.
It is in the best interests of [E.B.] to be removed from the home environment and remaining in the home would be contrary to the health and welfare of [E.B.] because: Continued placement at home would not provide the level of structure and supervision necessary to prevent future delinquent behaviors which are harmful to [E.B.] and others.
[E.B.] is in need of supervision, care, treatment and services which are NOT available in the local community.
[E.B.] is in need of services beyond those which can be provided through probation services.
There is no available person or facility in St. Joseph County Indiana which can provide [E.B.] with the necessary services.
[E.B.] should be removed from the home because continuation in the home would not be in the best interest of [E.B.].
[F]ollowing his most recent offense, the Court attempted to secure a less-restrictive such placement in the form of a residential treatment facility, but all three facilities examined by the probation department have rejected [E.B.] for admission. In this regard, the Court notes the Probation Officer's allegation that according to admission staff of IUMCH, [E.B.] struggled during the interview with taking ownership and being honest. Additional responses provided that their reason for denial is due to the pattern of aggressive and impulsive behavior....
The Court further agrees with the Probation Officer's assessment: [E.B.] has made minimal progress towards his criminality and the goals he has set for himself. Since February 2024, [E.B.] has failed to listen to his parent, received suspensions from school, neglected to participate or attend probation programming,
admitted to stealing items from local stores in the community, and received an additional referral to the Probation Department. Simply put, the Court finds any less restrictive placement to be inconsistent with community safety.
[E.B.] shall remain in secure detention while awaiting placement at the Indiana Department of Correction.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 216-18.
[¶13] E.B. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶14] The disposition of a juvenile delinquent is committed to the juvenile court's sound discretion, "subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the community's safety, and the Indiana Code's policy of favoring the least harsh disposition." E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 684 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002), trans. denied. A juvenile court's disposition will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. A juvenile court abuses its discretion only if its action is "clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom." Id.
[¶15] In accordance with Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6, "[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 . . . and most appropriate setting available[.]" R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010). While I.C. § 31-37-18-6 requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement in most situations, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interests of the child are better served by a more restrictive placement. See, e.g., K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (recognizing that the statute requires placement in the least restrictive setting only "[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child"), trans. denied.
[¶16] Notwithstanding E.B.'s contention that the juvenile court abused its discretion in making him a ward of the DOC because he should have been prescribed medication and placed in a less restrictive setting, the evidence established that E.B. failed to conform his behavior to an acceptable standard despite being afforded multiple opportunities to do so. Only two months after E.B. was adjudicated delinquent for committing battery, he violated his probation by stealing, fighting, leaving home without permission, and skipping school. The juvenile court nonetheless permitted E.B. to remain on probation. Even though E.B. was informed that future violations could result in detention placement, he continued to violate the rules and conditions of his probation. E.B. was suspended from school for punching another student, and he received numerous behavior-related incident reports during his detention at the Center.
[¶17] Although E.B. was released to home detention at the end of 2023 with a suspended commitment to the DOC, his behavior did not improve. E.B. stole food items from Target and sold them to other students at school. He completed only five of twenty-eight lessons in a court-ordered program and routinely missed required meetings with no valid excuse. E.B. was suspended from school again in March 2024 for fighting with another student, and he committed intimidation in April after telling his mother that he was going to have her house "sh[ot] up" and kill everyone inside. Transcript Vol. 2 at 36-39. E.B.'s mother did not want E.B. to return home in light of his threatening behavior, and alternative residential placement facilities refused to admit him.
[¶18] Although E.B. claims that the juvenile court should have ordered him to receive medication to control his anger and impulsive behavior, Dr. Burnett only opined that "medication may help" E.B. succeed with community-based treatment. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 123 (emphasis added). And Dr. Burnett's report specifically stated that "[s]o far," E.B. had not demonstrated that community-based treatment was a reasonable option. Id. Additionally, E.B.'s mother did not believe that medication would "change anything," E.B. claimed that he did not need medication, and he was noncompliant with previously-prescribed medications. Id. at 208; Transcript Vol. 2 at 30.
[¶19] In sum, given the failure of less-restrictive placements to resolve E.B.'s behavioral issues and the lack of other residential options open to the juvenile court, we cannot say that it abused its discretion in ordering E.B. committed to a secure environment at the DOC where he can obtain the help that he requires.
[¶20] Judgment affirmed.
Vaidik, J. and Crone, Sr.J., concur.