Opinion
24A-JV-775
09-03-2024
K.C., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Katherine N. Worman Evansville, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Vanderburgh Superior Court The Honorable Gary Schutte, Judge The Honorable Renee A. Ferguson, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 82D04-2401-JD-19
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Katherine N. Worman Evansville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRADFORD, JUDGE.
Case Summary
[¶ 1] K.C. was born in October of 2008 and resides in Evansville. K.C. was first adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in March of 2022 and, since then, has had six more referrals to the juvenile court, mostly involving running away from home and escape from various court-ordered placements. K.C. has a long history of mental illness and has admitted to regularly using a wide variety of illegal drugs. In February of 2024, following an incident at her latest residential placement, in which she attempted to access a medicine cart and had a physical altercation with staff members, the juvenile court adjudicated her a delinquent and ordered her committed to the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). K.C. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering her committed to the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶ 2] K.C. was born in 2008, was first admitted to a hospital for suicidal behavior when she was eight years old and has been diagnosed with anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression. In March of 2022, K.C. was adjudicated a delinquent for resisting law enforcement and given credit for time served at the Youth Care Center ("YCC"). Less than six months later, K.C. was adjudicated delinquent for leaving home without permission and placed on probation. On August 29, 2022, K.C. was adjudicated delinquent for escape from Hillcrest Youth Services ("Hillcrest"), and on October 17, 2022, she was adjudicated delinquent for escape from home detention and criminal mischief. In February of 2023, K.C. was placed at the Neurodiagnostic Institute ("NDI") for seven months. On one occasion while at NDI, she fled a staffed outing, got into a vehicle with a stranger, and was subsequently found in Salem, Indiana, with an older man.
[¶ 3] Less than four months after she had been discharged from NDI, K.C. again left home without permission. On December 21, 2023, the Evansville Police Department detained K.C. after she had left home without permission. K.C. was ordered to remain at Hillcrest on an emergency basis and advised of escape consequences. Approximately one week later, K.C. fled Hillcrest. The juvenile court ordered K.C. to remain in secure detention at the YCC because she was a "flight risk." Tr. Vol. II p. 8. On January 10, 2024, K.C. participated in a juvenile drug-and-alcohol assessment, in which she indicated that she smoked marijuana daily, reported regular alcohol consumption, and admitted to recent use of amphetamines, benzodiazepines, "[a]cid[,]" and heroin. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 32. While at the YCC, K.C. attempted to break into a medication cart. When staff members attempted to return K.C. to her room, she punched and kicked them. K.C. also had a sharp object in her room that she was using to cut her arm. K.C.'s mother reported that she was out of her care and control and that she needed some sort of "residential placement." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 19.
[¶ 4] On February 5, 2024, a dispositional hearing was held, and a probation officer testified that K.C. was "a very high safety risk" who had "put herself in extremely dangerous situations." Tr. Vol. II p. 11. Moreover, six of the eight residential facilities that probation had investigated had denied a placement for K.C., one of the remaining facilities had closed, and the other had not responded. On March 11, 2024, the juvenile court found that it had "run out of options" and ordered K.C. committed to the DOC for placement at the Indiana Girls School. Tr. Vol. II p. 22.
Discussion and Decision
[¶ 5] K.C. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering her committed to the DOC. 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.
[¶ 6] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child; however, its discretion is circumscribed by statute. R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010). Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 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 [...] and most appropriate setting available[.]" Id. Although the statute 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. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002), trans. denied.
[¶ 7] K.C. has not established that the juvenile court abused its discretion in concluding that her interests would be best served by a more restrictive placement in the DOC. In the two years preceding the juvenile court's disposition, K.C., who has a history of mental illness, suicidal ideations, and substance abuse, had been referred to juvenile court seven times, for resisting arrest, escape from lawful detention, escape from home detention and criminal mischief, and four times for leaving home without permission. While detained awaiting disposition in this case, K.C. received two seventy-two-hour lockdowns, one for shredding a holiday tablecloth and the other for attempting to access a medication cart, fighting with staff who had been attempting to return her to her room, and possessing a sharp object, with which she had been cutting herself. None of the eight residential facilities contacted by probation was willing to offer K.C. a placement. A fair characterization of the record is that K.C.'s behavior has, if anything, become riskier and more concerning since her first contact with the juvenile justice system and that it is reasonable to assume that she will flee any placement from which flight is a possibility. Given the failure of less-restrictive placements to resolve K.C.'s behavioral and substance-abuse issues and the lack of other residential options open to the juvenile court, we cannot say that it abused its discretion in ordering K.C. committed to the DOC.
[¶ 8] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.