MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 28 2018, 11:18 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Nancy A. McCaslin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General
Elkhart, Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.M., February 28, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1709-JV-2121
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court, Juvenile Division
State of Indiana, The Honorable Deborah Domine,
Appellee-Petitioner Magistrate
The Honorable Michael A.
Christofeno, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-1504-JD-139
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] A.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the custody of the
Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a violation of probation.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In June 2015, A.M. was adjudicated a delinquent for battery resulting in bodily
injury, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A.M. was placed on
probation, but he was not successful. Between June 2015 and May 2017, A.M.
was found to have violated the terms of his probation on four occasions. As a
result, multiple services were ordered, including: informal probation, formal
probation, electronic monitoring, therapeutic services, and residential-treatment
programs. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 189-90. A.M. was asked to leave
the first residential-treatment program because of his physical aggression. A.M.
was placed in a second residential-treatment program where he showed
“progress in all areas of his treatment . . . with the exception of his education.”
Tr. Vol. II p. 105. A.M. was enrolled in five classes but had a passing grade in
only two classes.
[3] In May 2017, A.M. was released from the residential-treatment program into
the custody of his mother. Two conditions of his release were that A.M. attend
both sessions of summer school and participate in transitional services. At the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6
time of his release, A.M. was seventeen and had completed only four of the
forty credits needed for a high-school diploma.
[4] Approximately five weeks after his release, A.M. was charged with residential
entry, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and resisting law enforcement,
a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A.M. was removed from his
mother’s custody and placed in the juvenile-detention center. Because of these
new offenses, the State claimed that A.M. was in violation of his probation on
the original battery adjudication. The State also alleged that A.M. violated his
probation by failing to attend the first session of summer school. A hearing was
held on the new charges, and the juvenile court found that there was reasonable
doubt that A.M. committed residential entry but entered a finding for the State
on the resisting-law-enforcement charge. The juvenile court entered an
adjudication and closed the case.
[5] The juvenile court also found that he had violated the conditions of his
probation. During the adjudication hearing on the probation violation, the
juvenile probation department stated that since April 2015, A.M. had been
given multiple opportunities to be rehabilitated, but none of the services had
been successful. The probation department recommended that A.M. be
committed to the DOC, stressing that A.M. only does what is required of him
when he is in a structured environment, like the juvenile-detention center. For
example, A.M. failed to comply with the May 2017 order that he attend
summer school, but while he was at the juvenile-detention center he obtained
three credits toward his high-school diploma. A treatment provider who
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6
worked with A.M. while he was in his mother’s custody agreed with the
probation department’s recommendation. The provider stated that A.M. was
not cooperative with services while in his mother’s care but that A.M. had been
compliant with services while at the juvenile-detention center.
[6] The juvenile court then stressed to A.M. the importance of obtaining his high-
school diploma: “You know, we pound on education because we know from
the research that education is a protective factor that makes it less likely you’re
going to commit a crime and this is all about community safety.” Tr. Vol. II p.
143. The juvenile court concluded that despite the probation department’s
efforts, A.M. continued to commit new criminal offenses. The court found that
it is in A.M.’s best interests to be placed in the custody of the DOC, that
reasonable efforts had been made to prevent A.M. from being removed from his
mother’s custody, that community resources had been exhausted, and that
placement in the DOC would give A.M. the structured environment he needed
for rehabilitation. Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 190-91.
[7] A.M. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] A.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded
that he should be committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile is
within the juvenile court’s discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind.
2006). We will reverse a juvenile disposition only upon a showing that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6
juvenile court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
disposition is “clearly 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.
[9] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 guides the court’s disposition of a juvenile. In
part, the statute states, “If 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 (most family like) and most appropriate setting
available[.]” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. A.M. claims that the juvenile court’s
disposition violates Section 31-37-18-6 because his behavior is not a risk to the
community and that his commitment to the DOC is not the least restrictive
option available. A.M. contends that he is no longer engaged in the behavior
that initially got him in trouble in April 2015 and that failing to attend summer
school does not present a risk to the community.
[10] The record shows that A.M. was given extensive opportunities to rehabilitate
himself. A.M. was offered and failed over twenty different services and
programs, including: informal probation, formal probation, electronic
monitoring, residential-treatment programs, and therapeutic services. While
A.M. was not engaging in the same behaviors that began his legal troubles, he
committed a new criminal offense and routinely failed to comply with his
conditions of probation. A.M. has demonstrated that he is unable to do what is
required of him without being in a heavily structured and supervised
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6
environment. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered
A.M. into the custody of the DOC.
[11] Affirmed.
May, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6