Opinion
24A-JV-1853
12-03-2024
J.C., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT THOMAS C. ALLEN FORT WAYNE, INDIANA ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THEODORE E. ROKITA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA MICHELLE HAWK KAZMIERCZAK 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Allen Superior Court The Honorable Andrea R. Trevino, Judge The Honorable Carolyn S. Foley, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D07-2311-JD-1277
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT THOMAS C. ALLEN FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE THEODORE E. ROKITA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA MICHELLE HAWK KAZMIERCZAK DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brown, Judge
[¶1] J.C. appeals the juvenile court's order committing him to the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On November 13, 2023, the State filed a petition alleging that J.C., who was born in September 2008, committed delinquent acts which would constitute battery resulting in bodily injury to J.C.'s father, T.C., and battery resulting in bodily injury to W.C. as class A misdemeanors, if committed by an adult.
At the July 9, 2024 hearing, the court stated that the allegations related to batteries against J.C.'s father and J.C.'s younger brother.
[¶3] On November 14, 2023, the court entered an Initial Hearing Order indicating it held a hearing at which J.C. admitted the delinquent acts. The court determined that J.C. was a delinquent child and found him to be a violent offender pursuant to Ind. Code §§ 35-38-2.5-4 and 11-8-1-9. It found that the Allen County Juvenile Probation Department was given responsibility for J.C.'s placement and care.
J.C.'s notice of appeal requested a transcript of only the July 9, 2024 hearing. The record does not contain transcripts of the other hearings.
[¶4] On December 12, 2023, the court held a hearing and entered a dispositional order which found that J.C.'s "delinquent conduct is chronic and escalating and [he] has been offered ample opportunities to alter such behavior," he "must learn the logical and natural consequences of delinquent behavior," he "is in need of rehabilitation and will benefit from a highly structured environment," and "[p]robation and/or community services have been exhausted and/or will be ineffective to effectuate [his] care, treatment and rehabilitation." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 66. It placed J.C. under the supervision of the Allen County Juvenile Probation Department's Placement Team and ordered J.C. into placement at a facility for juveniles such as Bashor Children's Home.
[¶5] On January 29, 2024, the State filed a Petition for Modification of Dispositional Order which alleged that J.C. failed to obey the rules of the placement facility. On February 1, 2024, the State filed a motion to dismiss its January 29, 2024 petition "for the reason that [J.C.] will continue to receive treatment and/or services at Bashor Children's Home through the Allen County Juvenile Probation Department." Id. at 80. That same day, the court granted the State's motion to dismiss.
[¶6] On April 17, 2024, the court entered a Placement Review Order finding that J.C. had resided at Bashor Children's Home for four months, he was not progressing well in that placement, he was in partial compliance with his treatment plan, the goals of the dispositional order had not been accomplished, the present placement remained in J.C.'s best interest, and J.C. was to remain at Bashor Children's Home.
[¶7] On May 15, 2024, the court entered a Placement Review Order finding that J.C. was in substantial compliance with his treatment plan but that the goals of the dispositional order had not been accomplished. It ordered that J.C. remain in placement at Bashor Children's Home.
[¶8] On June 10, 2024, the State filed a Petition for Modification of Dispositional Order which alleged that J.C. displayed "unlawful behavior" in May 2024 and "failed to comply with the rules of his placement facility" in May and June 2024. Id. at 95. On June 13, 2024, the court entered a Modification Order following a hearing which found that J.C. admitted to violating the dispositional order and ordered his placement in temporary secure detention at the Allen County Juvenile Center and participation in the Thinking Errors Program. The court scheduled a "Hearing on Modified Dispositional" for July 9, 2024. Id. at 98.
[¶9] On July 9, 2024, the court held a hearing. J.C. stated that: "I feel like I - I don't deserve any more chances, but I don't - I don't believe I should be able to - I should go to DOC. I feel like I should do at least ninety here, Your Honor." Transcript Volume II at 10. J.C.'s mother testified that she had "no means to travel down there to see" J.C. if he was placed in the DOC. Id. at 12. J.C.'s father testified that he would prefer that J.C. be placed at home.
[¶10] Officer Miller appeared on behalf of the juvenile probation department and testified that J.C. "eloped" four times from the "non-secure placement facility at Bashor . . . in extremely danger [sic] weather at - complete disregard for his safety as well as the other residents in the program." Id. at 13. He testified that Bashor Children's Home "gave him another opportunity in a locked secure program" and J.C. "struggled at every step of the way in that program from destruction of property, [] constant destruction of property, additional elopements from their locked secure program by climbing a fence and jumping on the roof and then jumping off the roof and running around campus." Id. at 14.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court stated: "Officer Miller is here on behalf of the juvenile probation department." Transcript Volume II at 4.
[¶11] According to Officer Miller's testimony, at his "first placement review," J.C. "was given an opportunity to return to Bashor." Id. At a thirty-day review, J.C. had no significant incidents during the thirty-day period. The next day after returning to Bashor Children's Home, J.C. "got in a fight" and dislocated his shoulder. Id. "Before that could truly be addressed by probation and Bashor," J.C. eloped again by climbing the fence and jumping on the roof. Id. During this incident, J.C. "got so many kids worked up, staff were attacked by other resident [sic]" and "other kids eloped within the campus." Id.
[¶12] Officer Miller further testified that J.C. "has been given multiple opportunities by this Court and by probation and by Bashor." Id. He also stated that J.C. was "clearly a danger to himself and others based on his behaviors." Id. at 15. He stated that the Allen County Juvenile Center was not a treatment facility, "[e]veryone agrees [J.C.] is in need of treatment," and J.C. had proven "to probation and the Court over several months he can't - even on a locked secure program for placement can't contain him." Id. He asserted that DOC offers J.C. the most secure option to continue his therapy. He also noted that the Indiana Youth Assessment System ("IYAS") for him was "high" and was "very high . . . for a kid of his age." Id.
[¶13] After the presentation of evidence, the court stated:
The Court does find . . . that [J.C.] has been the recipient of services through the juvenile probation department . . . since . . . his first program of informal adjustment which was instituted [in] June of 2023. [C]ommunity services were ordered . . . through that program of informal adjustment . . . that . . . does include psychological assessment, the Allen County Learning Academy, uh, thinking errors, uh, as well as individual counseling and random urinalysis. [T]hat case was ultimately . . . closed as being unsuccessful due to the commission of new offenses. [W]e have had formal probation services . . . in the current case . . . again with services ordered, . . . ultimately resulting in an order for participation in residential treatment in December of 2023. The Court therefore finds that [J.C.] has been given opportunities to alter his behaviors, clearly still needs to learn logical and natural consequences of his delinquent behavior.... I do find that he remains in need [of] rehabilitation and clearly does function better in . . . more structure.... I will note that the underlying offense . . . in this matter . . . there are adjudications on Count 1 and 2, . . . batteries that occurred with [sic] the home, . . . being to the younger brother as I recall . . . as well as to father .... I do find that parents, . . . while being extremely supportive
of their son, . . . have very little control over [J.C.], particularly when he starts engaging in extremely impulsive behavior, which is one of the reasons that he was sent into residential treatment. I do find . . . that his . . . IYAS score . . . does show that he is at a high risk to reoffend. [W]e do have . . . a unanimous recommendation from the placement board that he receive services through the [DOC]. It is very difficult for this Court to find that further community services would be effective in this matter based upon [J.C.'s] behavior, which . . . I frankly find to be somewhat mysterious given that when he was present for therapy, he was participating in therapy. But [J.C.], the . . . taking off from Bashor, the multiple absconding incidents and . . . frankly, . . . absconding . . . in terrible weather - you could've killed yourself and that frankly, . . . your tendency to place yourself in really dangerous situations - the fact that you actually caused a near riot at Bashor's based upon your behavior is really really concerning to me. [F]rom a therapeutic aspect, the . . . State is absolutely accurate, we - we are a detention facility here. We are not a therapeutic placement and so I am just - if I had a magic wand, I'd probably put a shackle on your leg and send you back down to Bashor so you couldn't take off on me again because it's really, really clear that you don't have the ability to . . . function without having someone standing over you all the time because you place yourself in dangerous situations. Unfortunately I don't have that magic wand. I don't have the services here, I can't send you back to Bashor's, so at this point, [J.C.], the Court has very few other options except services through the [DOC]. As a result of that, Sir, I am going to accept the recommendation of the probation department and order that you are so committed. It is my hope that you will actively participate in the services there and be home in a matter of months. But if you behave at the [DOC] the way that you did a [sic] Bashor's, you're going to be there for a while. So it's really up to you.Id. at 16-19.
[¶14] On July 9, 2024, the court entered a Modified Dispositional Order which found that J.C.'s "delinquent conduct is chronic and escalating"; J.C. had been offered ample opportunities to alter such behavior; J.C. was in need of rehabilitation and will benefit from a highly structured environment; "[t]he parent has little control over [J.C.'s] behavior"; probation and/or community services have been exhausted and/or will be ineffective to effectuate J.C.'s care, treatment, and rehabilitation; J.C.'s "IYAS score shows that [he] is at a high risk to reoffend"; and it is the unanimous recommendation of the Placement Board that J.C. be committed to the DOC. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 110. It found that reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan. The court awarded wardship of J.C. to the DOC for housing in a correctional facility for children. It found that detention was "essential to protect [J.C.] or community and [was] in [J.C.'s] best interests." Id. at 111. It further found that the disposition was consistent with the safety and the best interest of J.C.; was the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available close to the parent, guardian, or custodian's home; least interfered with the family's autonomy; was least disruptive of family life; imposed the least restraint on the freedom of J.C. and his parent, guardian, or custodian; and provided a reasonable opportunity for participation by J.C.'s parent, guardian, or custodian.
Discussion
[¶15] J.C. argues that the trial court abused its discretion by placing him at the DOC. He asserts that he had only two adjudications for crimes of violence arising from this case and he "has not shown any tendencies to be violent or dangerous to the community." Appellant's Brief at 16. He contends his parents do not have the financial means or ability to travel any distance to visit him in a DOC placement.
[¶16] 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). However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-186, 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). We review the juvenile court's disposition for an abuse of discretion. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010).
[¶17] The record reveals that J.C. committed acts that would constitute batteries resulting in bodily injury against his father and younger brother if committed by an adult. The court placed J.C. with the Allen County Juvenile Probation Department and Bashor Children's Home. Despite numerous opportunities, J.C. failed to obey the rules, eloped multiple times, destroyed property, engaged in a fight, and was involved in an incident in which other residents were "worked up" and attacked staff. Transcript Volume II at 14.
[¶18] Based upon the record, we conclude that the court's ordered placement is consistent with J.C.'s best interests and the safety of the community. We find no abuse of discretion.
[¶19] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court.
[¶20] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.