MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 17 2018, 9:14 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
P. Stephen Miller Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
V.H., January 17, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A05-1708-JV-1861
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Daniel G. Heath,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Daniel Pappas,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
02D07-1705-JD-492
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 1 of 7
[1] V.H. appeals the juvenile court’s entry of a dispositional order that placed her in
the Department of Correction (“DOC”). V.H. argues the juvenile court abused
its discretion by placing her in the DOC after the court’s “total failure to
examine the limited psychological information placed before the court.” (Br. of
Appellant at 13.) Because the evidence in the record does not demonstrate an
abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 6, 2017, fifteen-year-old V.H. left Kroger without paying for the
razors, candy, and drinks she took from Kroger. She was arrested in the
parking lot and gave false information about her identity. On May 8, the State
requested permission to file a Petition Alleging Delinquency for acts that, if
committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor conversion 1 and Class
B misdemeanor false informing. 2 The juvenile court granted the State
permission to file the delinquency petition. Because V.H. had been declared a
Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and was a ward of the State when she
committed the alleged acts on May 6, 2017, the juvenile court requested a
report from the Dual Status Assessment Team.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a).
2
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-3(d)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 2 of 7
[3] V.H. admitted the delinquent acts alleged in the Petition, and the court held a
dispositional hearing on July 6, 2017. V.H.’s mother was not present because
she had been arrested a few days earlier on an outstanding warrant, and V.H.’s
father was not present because he had terminal cancer. The court received
reports from the County Juvenile Center, the Placement Board, and the Dual
Status Assessment Team. The Probation Department recommended V.H. be
committed to the DOC because all previous attempts at probation had failed
and because V.H. had not been attending school since her last release from the
DOC. The Dual Status Assessment Team also recommended DOC placement
because “we don’t have anything else to offer this young lady in the community
at this point.” (Tr. at 10.) The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) also
concurred with the recommendation of placement in DOC because, while V.H.
was in the community, DCS had “been unable to offer [any service] because
[V.H. has] not stayed in a particular placement long enough.” (Id.)
[4] The court’s dispositional order contained the following findings:
1. The juvenile has an extensive history of incorrigible behavior.
2. The juvenile minimizes delinquent behavior.
3. The juvenile’s delinquent conduct is chronic and escalating
and the juvenile has been offered ample opportunities to alter
such behavior.
4. The juvenile must learn the logical and natural consequences
of delinquent behavior.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 3 of 7
5. The juvenile is in need of rehabilitation and will benefit from a
highly structured environment.
6. The parent has little control over juvenile’s behavior.
7. The juvenile was previously ordered committed to the
Department of Correction.
8. The Court also finds that the disposition set forth hereinafter is
appropriate due to the seriousness of the offense.
9. The Court finds that the juvenile is in danger of reaching 18
years of age without a high school diploma or high school
equivalency (HSE) diploma certificate. The Court finds that the
juvenile is significantly behind in accumulated high school credits
and is not on course to graduate from high school. The Court
finds that the juvenile has been offered numerous education
opportunities. The Court finds that the juvenile’s educational
advancement requires the highly structured environment
provided by the Allen County Juvenile Center.
10. The recommendation of the Dual Status Team is that the
juvenile be committed to the Department of Correction.
(App. Vol. II at 91-92.) The court then awarded wardship of V.H. to the DOC
because such detention “is essential to protect the child or community and is in
the child’s best interests.” (Id. at 92.)
Discussion and Decision
[5] We initially note that “the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly different
from the criminal justice system.” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 4 of 7
App. 2010). The goal of juvenile proceedings is “rehabilitation so that the youth
will not become a criminal as an adult.” Id. (emphasis in original). To
facilitate this goal, juvenile courts have a number of options available for
juvenile placement: “from a private home in the community, a licensed foster
home, a local juvenile detention center, to State institutions[.]” Jordan v. State,
512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987).
[6] To assist juvenile courts in selecting amongst available placement alternatives,
the Indiana Legislature has provided guidance regarding the option to be
selected for any particular child:
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 5 of 7
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the
child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. Within those parameters, a juvenile court has
discretion in choosing the disposition appropriate for each juvenile delinquent,
D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), and we review its
disposition for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 97. An abuse of discretion
occurs if the court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions
to be drawn therefrom.” Id.
[7] V.H. asserts the court abused its discretion in committing her to the DOC
because it did not give sufficient consideration to “the limited psychological
information placed before the court.” (Br. of Appellant at 13.) However, when
pointing to the information V.H. says the court should have discovered, V.H. is
citing information that was not placed before the juvenile court and, as V.H.
acknowledges, is not “evidence.” (Id. at 14.) If there was additional evidence
V.H. wished the juvenile court to consider, V.H. should have offered such
evidence at the dispositional hearing.
[8] Furthermore, the court was considering the specifics of V.H.’s circumstances
when it ordered DOC placement. V.H. was a ward of the State who had been
removed from her home, and she had not remained in the home where DCS
placed her, she had not gone to school, and she again committed delinquent
acts. In light of V.H.’s history with the juvenile system and her failure to
modify her behavior in response to prior services and placements, the juvenile
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 6 of 7
court did not abuse its discretion by placing her in the DOC. See, e.g., D.E., 962
N.E.2d at 97 (no abuse of discretion in placement of juvenile at DOC where
less-restrictive dispositions had been unsuccessful).
Conclusion
[9] The record demonstrates the juvenile court considered the evidence placed
before it, and that evidence demonstrates the court did not abuse its discretion
in ordering V.H. committed to the DOC. We accordingly affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 7 of 7