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
FILED
May 17 2012, 9:18 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ADAM C. SQUILLER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Squiller Law Office, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Auburn, Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.H., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 57A03-1201-JV-25
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert E. Kirsch, Judge
Cause No. 57D01-1111-JD-71
May 17, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Thirteen-year-old J.H. has a history of violating rules and committing offenses at
school. These acts have netted him suspensions and ultimately two expulsions. His conduct
in and out of school has twice resulted in delinquency adjudications. While on probation for
his first delinquency finding, J.H. admitted that he committed acts that would have been theft
and harassment if committed by an adult. Thus, he received a second delinquency finding for
those acts, and this time, the juvenile court committed him to the Indiana Boys’ School.
J.H. now appeals, challenging his placement at the Indiana Boys’ School. Finding that
the juvenile court acted within its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
In March 2011, thirteen-year-old J.H. was expelled from school for theft.
Immediately thereafter, the State filed a delinquency petition against J.H., seeking a true
finding for conduct that would have constituted theft if committed by an adult. In May 2011,
the juvenile court adjudicated J.H. a delinquent and placed him on probation.
J.H. was readmitted to school for the next school year, and in early September, he was
suspended for three days for stealing money from another student. Later that month, he made
a prank 911 call. He was still on probation when he committed both acts. In November
2011, he was expelled for the remainder of the semester for stealing money, pulling a
student’s pants down, possessing a knife on school grounds, and an “accumulation” of other
offenses. Tr. at 21.
2
On November 18, 2011, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that J.H.
committed acts that would have constituted class D felony theft, class B misdemeanor
harassment, and class B misdemeanor possession of a knife on school property if committed
by an adult. J.H. admitted to the conduct that would have been theft and harassment. On
December 19, 2011, the juvenile court entered true findings for the theft and harassment
conduct and dismissed the knife possession count. The juvenile court committed J.H. to the
Indiana Boys’ School as recommended by both the prosecutor and the chief probation officer.
J.H. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
J.H. challenges the juvenile court’s decision to commit him to the Indiana Boys’
School. “[S]ubject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the
community, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition,” the placement decision
for a child adjudicated a delinquent is a matter left to the juvenile court’s sound discretion.
J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Thus, we review such a disposition
using an abuse of discretion standard. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile
court’s action is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or
the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom. Id.
The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation rather than punishment. R.H. v.
State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Accordingly, juvenile courts have a variety
of placement options for juveniles with delinquency problems, none of which are considered
sentences. Id. Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 states,
3
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.
Here, J.H. argues that in committing him to the Indiana Boys’ School, the juvenile
court failed to consider intermediate placements and therefore disregarded the statutory
directive to select the least restrictive placement. We disagree. “Without question, the
statute requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement in most situations;
however, the statute contains language that reveals that a more restrictive placement might be
appropriate under certain circumstances.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 28-29. In other words, the
least restrictive placement is required “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and
the best interest of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (emphasis added).
J.H. relies on the brevity of the dispositional order in making his argument. However,
the record as a whole shows that the juvenile court did not ignore intermediate placements.
Rather, early in J.H.’s disposition hearing, the court explained to him the range of placement
alternatives if he was again found to be a delinquent:
COURT: [T]here are numerous dispositions or things I can do to you in
the event you are found to be a delinquent child and they range
all the way from at the high end is placement at the Indiana
Department of Corrections for placement at the Indiana Boys’
4
School. At the other end of the extreme is probation subject to
certain terms and conditions of probation. In between those two
extremes there are other things the Court can do. I could place
you in some type of foster home, group home, or shelter care
facility and that could either be a locked or a non-secure facility.
So there is a broad range of things that the Court can do. Do you
understand that?
J.H.: Yes, sir.
Tr. at 10-11.
J.H. admitted that he committed acts that would have been theft and harassment if
committed by an adult, and the juvenile court took his testimony to establish a factual basis
for his admission. The court afforded J.H.’s parents the opportunity to make
recommendations regarding placement. Because J.H. was on probation for a May 2011 true
finding of conduct constituting theft if committed by an adult when he committed the instant
offenses, both the chief probation officer and the prosecutor recommended placement at the
Indiana Boys’ School.
[PROSECUTOR]: Looking back at his prior offenses that had him placed on
probation as the Court will recall it also occurred at the school
and involved J.H. taking the property of other people, in that
case he was destroying that property. While in [sic] probation
he basically went along and did the same offense, however this
time it was just taking money. As the State understands he went
to multiple different rooms before finding the money he was
looking for. Taking into account all of his current offenses the
State would agree that the juvenile is not a candidate for further
probation. Looking at his record at the school it appears the
[sic] J.H. has been expelled for a second time now in the last
two years because of his numerous offenses including others
that didn’t make it to this level of adjudication here at the court
system.
Id. at 16-17.
5
The record shows that J.H. has a history of committing delinquent acts at school.
Despite an expulsion in March 2011 and a true finding in May 2011, J.H. continued to
commit delinquent acts. His most recent expulsion resulted from the following acts, all
committed on school grounds: pulling down a student’s pants in the lunch line, stealing
money from a student, and possessing a knife on school property. Thus, the safety of the
community dictated a more restrictive placement for J.H.
Moreover, the juvenile court provided a lengthy explanation as to why placement at
the Indiana Boys’ School was in J.H.’s best interests:
COURT: [L]et’s not equate Boys’ School with, I mean it is a part of the
Department of Corrections, but let’s not equate Boys’ School
with prison. Let’s not do that. Boys’ School is another resource
that the Court has to try to get kids to put their lives together. So
believe me if my decision is Boys’ School it is not, I am not
doing that with the intent of ruining J.H.[’s] life or saying that
he can’t make anything of himself in the future. That is the last
thing in the world, in fact if I accept the premise that Boys’
School was basically some place where I am going to warehouse
him, you know, that is all it is, then the juvenile has just broken
down and it is not workable. Now I am not saying Boys’ School
works for everybody. I don’t want to say that it is perfect
because it is not, but on the other had it is one more tool that we
have to try to get kids to understand why they do things …. [A]t
some point people like J.H. have to understand that there are
consequences for their actions. Especially when you have the
prior warning which was the probation that, hey, these are things
that can happen to me and yeah I screwed up and I made some
mistakes but they gave me a chance to go home and prove that I
deserve to be at home as opposed to someplace else, but yet in
spite of that we have a theft, we have a [prank] 911 call, and it
sounds like some other problems at school. It doesn’t sound like
the message of the previous warning really took hold. Now the
question then is, okay, given what I have in front of me do I
send him home again and keep my fingers crossed and say, well,
let’s hope that the second warning, he understands the second
6
warning. That is the problem I have. And these aren’t minor
violations of probation. This isn’t a situation where you know
you didn’t pay some fee or you know or got to school late one
day or the little stuff that are violations but yet they are not
violations of the law necessarily. We have new violations, new
criminal violations, and that is concerning …. So, at this point in
time I think we need to move to that next level[1] and see if
Boys’ School can provide J.H. with the structure that he needs to
understand, to understand that, hey yeah there are consequences
for my actions and I’ve got to think before I do certain things.
So I think that the Boys’ School option is appropriate at this
particular point in time.
Id. at 22-25.
In sum, the juvenile court took into account various placement options and determined
that placing J.H. in the Indiana Boys’ School was in the best interests of both him and the
community. As such, we find no abuse of discretion here. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
1
To the extent J.H. relies on the juvenile court’s reference to the Indiana Boys’ School as “the next
level” in arguing that the court failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, we disagree and note the court’s
earlier explanation to J.H. regarding alternative placements. Tr. at 10-11.
7