Opinion
24A-JV-1224
11-25-2024
K.L., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jennifer A. Joas Joas Law, LLC Madison, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer B. Anwarzai 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Ripley Circuit Court The Honorable Ryan J. King, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-2210-JD-19.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jennifer A. Joas Joas Law, LLC Madison, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer B. Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Foley, Judge.
[¶1] K.L., a delinquent child, challenges the modification of his placement to the Indiana Department of Correction ("the DOC") after he violated the conditions of his probation and struck two public safety officers in the face. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] As of September 29, 2022, K.L.-born in October 2007-was fourteen years old and had the status of a child in need of services. On that date, K.L. met with personnel from the Department of Child Services regarding a plan for K.L. to leave for substance abuse treatment at a rehabilitative facility. At that meeting, K.L. said on multiple occasions: "I am going to run wherever you take me[.]" Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 63. K.L. also said that, because he liked the way drugs made him feel, he would return to using drugs. A police officer arrived to transport K.L. When the police officer tried to shackle K.L., he jumped up, pushed the officer out of the way, and ran out of the building. A different policer officer pursued K.L. on foot and commanded him to stop running. Eventually, K.L. slowed down, put his hands up, and was taken into custody. K.L. was detained and brought to a juvenile detention facility.
[¶3] On October 5, 2022, the State filed a petition alleging K.L. committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. K.L. admitted to the allegation of resisting law enforcement. He also agreed to stay in detention until further order of the court. While K.L. was in detention, K.L. engaged in insubordinate behavior. At one point, K.L. barricaded the gym doors and broke a ceiling light. K.L. also punched and kicked another juvenile in the detention facility, reportedly because the juvenile was talking about him.
[¶4] On January 11, 2023, the trial court adjudicated K.L. a delinquent child. The trial court entered a dispositional order placing K.L. in the Wernle Youth &Family Treatment Center, which was a secure facility. The court also imposed probation with a suspended commitment to the DOC. The court held review hearings throughout the year, and toward the end of 2023, K.L. was ordered to complete 179 days of probation upon successful discharge from his residential placement. K.L. was successfully discharged on March 5, 2024, at which point K.L. began a trial home visit with his mother. It is undisputed that, while on the trial home visit, K.L. did not believe the environment was good for him and sought help from service providers in getting out of the home. On April 5, 2024, the State petitioned to modify the dispositional order, alleging that K.L. violated multiple drug screens, admitted to trying cocaine, and admitted to smoking marijuana every day. K.L. also reported that he was reverting to old behaviors and wanted rehabilitative services. On April 18, 2024, Court Services filed an amended petition to modify, requesting that K.L. be detained as an emergency change of placement. Later that day, the court held a hearing and ordered that K.L. be detained. Four days later, Court Services filed a second amended petition. The amended petition included allegations that K.L. had been violent with staff, punching one officer in the face and striking another.
[¶5] The trial court held a hearing on April 24, 2024, at which point K.L. was sixteen years old. K.L. admitted to the allegations in the second petition, and the matter proceeded to disposition. K.L. sought placement in the community, noting that a former staff member at the Wernle facility was willing to house him. K.L. explained that he had bonded with the staff member, who was like a mother to him. K.L.'s court-appointed special advocate stated that "there needs to be an alternative to [the] DOC," and was generally in favor of exploring the potential kinship placement. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 13. However, when that potential placement option was presented to K.L.'s probation officer, the probation officer disagreed with community placement. The probation officer also disagreed with residential placement for K.L. and viewed the DOC as the only viable placement option, noting: "Frankly, Court Services would be concerned with the safety of . . . residential staff or . . . the other residents that are in the residential facility based off of [K.L.'s] behavior while in detention." Id. at 17. When asked if it would be worth pursuing the kinship placement, the probation officer added: "Not at this time given [K.L.'s] behavior while in detention. I would be, as I said before[,] . . . fearful for him in a residential facility, let alone in the community." Id. at 19. The court was also informed that, although the potential kinship option was aware that K.L. had some sort of incident while detained, she did not know the details of the violent episode.
[¶6] The hearing included testimony from K.L., who answered the trial court's questions about his trial home visit. K.L. acknowledged that, while on his trial home visit, he had used marijuana and cocaine. K.L. also acknowledged that he had stolen pills from his father. As to his conduct during that time, K.L. said: "I forgot I was even on probation because of how I was living my life." Id. at 30. K.L. admitted he was "an addict" and "love[d] drugs[.]" Id. at 31.
[¶7] At one point, the trial court noted that, other than the DOC, "there's no place for [K.L.] to go right now." Id. at 20. When the court later inquired about K.L.'s juvenile history, K.L.'s probation officer reported that, "while [K.L.] was placed at Open Door Youth Services, . . . he received charges for battery resulting in bodily injury and strangulation of a female resident" and "was adjudicated on both charges," resulting in twenty days in detention. Id. at 34. After engaging in a colloquy with K.L., the court ultimately decided to modify K.L.'s placement to the DOC for an indeterminate period, noting that K.L. would have the opportunity to receive services at the DOC. K.L. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] K.L. challenges the modification of his placement to the DOC. In general, a trial court enjoys "wide latitude and great flexibility" in juvenile matters, and we review its placement decisions for an abuse of discretion. K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018) (quoting C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), trans. denied), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the decision reflects a misapplication of the law. See, e.g., State v. Miracle, 75 N.E.3d 1106, 1108 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017).
[¶9] In placing a delinquent child, the trial court must exercise its discretion within the parameters of Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6, which provides as follows:
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.
Although not at issue in this case, we note that when a delinquent child is also a child in need of services, the trial court must take certain steps in light of the child's "dual status." See, e.g., Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a)(6); K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 852-53 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018) (discussing dual status issues), trans. denied.
[¶10] Here, K.L. claims the trial court abused its discretion in modifying placement to the DOC. He argues that the decision was "punitive" and "d[id] not further the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system." Appellant's Br. p. 13. At times, K.L. asserts that his "involvement with the juvenile justice system [was] possibly, in part, the result of [parental] abuse and neglect[.]" Id. He argues that the least-restrictive and most family-like option was to place him in the community, allowing him to live with the former staff member from Wernle.
[¶11] K.L. focuses on whether the trial court selected the least-restrictive placement option, giving little attention to the court's obligation to consider community safety. Critically, Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 states that placement in the community is appropriate only "[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child[.]" Here, the evidence indicated that K.L. was unsuccessful during a trial home visit in the community, with K.L. using drugs and stealing pills. Once K.L. was detained, he was violent with multiple officers, striking one officer and punching another in the face. K.L. had previously exhibited violence while detained, at one point punching and kicking a juvenile who talked about him. Because of the nature of K.L.'s conduct, his probation officer testified against placing K.L. in the community. Indeed, in light of K.L.'s behaviors, including his recent violence against two officers at the detention facility, K.L.'s probation officer viewed the DOC as the only viable placement option. The State agreed with this assessment, asserting: "[T]he State believes that the [court is] out of opportunities at this point in time, and that [the DOC] is the place that [K.L.] needs to go[.]" Tr. Vol. 2 p. 33. The State added that K.L.'s behavior "seem[ed] to be escalating" and it expressed "concerns that[,] if he's placed anywhere other than the [DOC], there could be significant fallout, injury to him, somebody else, or even both." Id.
[¶12] Although K.L.-having been the victim of neglect-was optimistic about his ability to reform in the care of someone he felt believed in him, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in declining to place K.L. in the community. Indeed, after approximately one year in a secure residential facility, K.L. continued to engage in troubling behaviors, including drug use, theft, and violence-and these behaviors indicated that K.L. presented a threat to both himself and the community. Based on the evidence at hand, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ultimately deciding to modify placement to the DOC.
[¶13] Affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.