Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ELIZABETH HARDTKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
AARON J. SPOLARICH
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Mar 13 2013, 9:07 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.A.H, )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 71A04-1210-JV-541
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH PROBATE COURT
The Honorable Peter J. Nemeth, Judge
The Honorable Harold E. Brueseke, Magistrate
Cause No. 71J01-1208-JD-379
March 13, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
J.A.H. appeals the dispositional order following his admission to the delinquent
act of resisting law enforcement. He presents one issue for our review which we restate
as whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering J.A.H. committed to the
Department of Correction.
Affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
J.A.H. is a seventeen-year-old male who is in the care of his mother. He has a
history with the juvenile justice system going back many years; the instant case is his
thirteenth referral. Appellant’s App. p. 16. Over the course of that history, the juvenile
court has ordered many different types of rehabilitation for J.A.H., including: formal
probation, the Indiana Department of Correction’s South Bend Juvenile Correctional
Facility, the Day Reporting Program, Summit Counseling, Court Ordered Substance
Abuse Treatment (“COSAT”), the Community Transition Program, and Central
Academy. Id. J.A.H has also received psychological evaluations, medication, and
individual counseling. After his successful completion of the Juvenile Justice Center’s
(“JCC”) Community Transition Program in November 2011, J.A.H.’s problems
continued. One month later, his mother filed an ungovernable complaint with St. Joseph
Probate Court due to his truancy and out of control behavior.
On July 31, 2012, officers were called to the home of J.A.H.’s aunt. J.A.H. was
outside of his aunt’s home in a state of rage because his aunt had destroyed his new cell
phone. When police arrived, J.A.H. was attempting to break the windows of the cars in
his aunt’s driveway. The police suspected that he may have had a gun. J.A.H. shouted
2
and swore at the police officers. He also refused to put his hands behind his back as
directed. After he was transported to the JCC, he tested positive for marijuana.
According to J.A.H.’s mother, this event was the culmination of a “three day ordeal”
involving drugs and alcohol.
A petition was filed by the State alleging that J.A.H. was a delinquent for
committing acts which, if committed by an adult, would have been one count of Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and one count Class B misdemeanor disorderly
conduct. J.A.H. and the State submitted an Order of Submission of Admission
Agreement, which was accepted by the court stating that J.A.H. would admit that he
engaged in resisting law enforcement in exchange for the dismissal of the disorderly
conduct charge. Following this agreement and a hearing on September 25, 2012, the St.
Joseph Probate Court ordered that J.A.H. be placed with the Department of Correction.
J.A.H. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
The choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child
is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will be reversed only if
there is an abuse of discretion. E.L. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 360, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
The juvenile court’s discretion is 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. Id. An abuse of discretion 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 deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id.
3
Indiana Code Section 31–37–18–6 sets forth several factors a juvenile court must
consider when entering a dispositional decree. It provides:
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.
Id. J.A.H. asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered J.A.H. to
be committed to the Indiana Department of Correction when a less restrictive disposition
was available. Appellant Br. at 4.
After a hearing and considering the recommendations of the St. Joseph Probate
Court’s Pre-Dispositional Report1 authored by Director of Probation, Scott Filley, and
Probation Officer, Karey Nicholson Marvin, the court ordered J.A.H. to be placed in the
Indiana Department of Corrections. Appellant’s App. p. 19. The court found that it was
in the best interests of the child to be removed from the home to prevent future delinquent
behaviors harmful to the juvenile and to others. In light of his long history with the
juvenile detention system, J.A.H. needed services beyond what could be provided
through probation services, and there were no available, elevated services or facilities
1
The recommendations in the report were the collective judgment of a group of professionals including
probation officers, probation supervisors, and mental health providers. Among other factors, the group of
professionals considered J.A.H.’s prior record, the family setting, and the educational setting.
4
within St. Joseph County at the time of J.A.H.’s disposition. Neither of J.A.H.’s parents
could provide a home with the structure J.A.H. required. While a suitable relative
placement was explored, one could not be found. Appellant’s App. p. 44. J.A.H.’s
mother, the pre-dispositional report, and the court all recommended that J.A.H. be placed
at Camp Summit in LaPorte, Indiana. J.A.H. began his commitment at Camp Summit on
October 23, 2012.
J.A.H.’s offense was serious in nature and warranted placement in a secure facility.
J.A.H.’s long history of prior delinquent acts supported placement in a secure facility.
Lesser restrictive means of controlling the child’s behavior had been investigated or tried.
Appellant’s App. p. 45. For all of these reasons, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion by ordering J.A.H. to be placed with the Department of Correction.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
5