MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 10 2018, 6:08 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal
Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
D.F., August 10, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-610
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Bob A. Witham,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C01-1706-JD-26
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
[1] D.F. appeals from the juvenile court’s order modifying a dispositional decree
following his adjudication as a delinquent child for battery, as a Class A
misdemeanor when committed by an adult. D.F. presents a single issue for our
review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when awarded
wardship of him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”).
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On June 9, 2017, officers with the New Castle Police Department (“NCPD”)
responded to two calls regarding a juvenile who was breaking into cars. When
Officer Jason Boring arrived at the scene of the second break-in, he arrested
D.F., who was then sixteen years old. Officer Boring observed that D.F.
appeared to be intoxicated, and D.F. told Officer Boring that he had recently
taken two clonazepam pills. Officer Boring arrested D.F. but released him with
instructions to meet with the juvenile probation department on June 12. D.F.
met with the probation department and agreed to the terms of an informal
adjustment.
[4] On June 15, D.F. was involved in an altercation with another individual.
During the altercation, D.F. punched the man.1 Officers with the NCPD
1
D.F.’s father allegedly stabbed the same man whom D.F. punched. Officers also arrested D.F.’s father.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 2 of 8
arrived at the scene and arrested D.F. In response to the two different arrests,
the State filed a delinquency petition against D.F. on June 19. In that petition,
the State alleged that D.F. had committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor
when committed by an adult, and two counts of unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle, both as Class B misdemeanors when committed by an adult.
[5] The juvenile court held an initial hearing on the State’s petition on June 22.
Pursuant to an agreement reached by D.F. and the State, D.F. admitted to
battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when committed by an adult, and the
juvenile court dismissed the two other charges. At that time, the juvenile court
adjudicated D.F. to be a delinquent. The juvenile court placed D.F. on home
detention with electronic monitoring and released him into the custody of his
grandmother. The court also ordered D.F. to participate in a substance-abuse
evaluation.
[6] Soon after D.F. was released into his grandmother’s care, D.F.’s grandmother
notified Henry County Community Corrections that sometime on the night of
June 23 or early on June 24, D.F. cut off his ankle bracelet and ran away from
home. On June 26, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. At that time,
the State recommended that D.F. undergo a complete substance-abuse
assessment at the DOC. D.F. agreed with the State’s recommendation.
Accordingly, the court ordered D.F. to complete that assessment.
[7] On August 21, D.F.’s probation officer filed a predispositional report. D.F.
admitted that he had used alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine on a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 3 of 8
daily basis. He also admitted that he had used prescription pills, including
Klonopin, benzodiazepine, and opiates, one or two times per month beginning
at the age of fourteen. The probation officer recommended that D.F. be placed
in a residential placement center. A psychological evaluation conducted by the
DOC indicated that D.F. had issues with substance abuse and criminal
behavior. The report further indicated that D.F. admitted that he had
previously carried a handgun and that he is a member of a gang. The
psychological report also recommended that D.F. be placed in a residential
facility. On August 24, the juvenile court placed D.F. in a residential
placement program at the Anderson Center. Within a few weeks of his
placement there, D.F. unsuccessfully attempted to escape from the facility.
However, the Anderson Center allowed D.F. to remain there.
[8] On December 10, while on a home pass from the Anderson Center, D.F. took a
Suboxone pill from a prescription bottle belonging to his father. D.F. ingested
part of the pill while on leave and took the other part of the pill with him back
to the Anderson Center. At some point thereafter, the Anderson Center
discovered that D.F. was writing letters to a female resident that contained
“highly descriptive sexual content” and were “borderline predatory in nature.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 159. The letters also included notes that highlighted
gang affiliation. The Anderson Center employees were concerned that they
could not meet D.F.’s needs, and they had concerns for the safety of the other
residents at the Anderson Center. D.F. did not handle the consequences of his
actions well, and he asked to be removed from the program.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 4 of 8
[9] On February 8, 2018, the State filed a petition for emergency change of
residence based on D.F.’s use of Suboxone while on leave, D.F.’s letters to the
female resident, D.F.’s request to be removed, and the Anderson Center’s
concerns for the safety of other individuals. On February 15, the juvenile court
held a hearing on the State’s petition. During the hearing, D.F.’s probation
officer testified that both she and D.F.’s therapist believed that the DOC
“would be the most suitable facility for him” based on D.F.’s past behavior
because the DOC has extensive juvenile programming and D.F. would be able
to complete a program that is best suited to his needs. Tr. Vol. II at 52. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court found that placement in the DOC was
D.F.’s best chance for making the necessary changes to his behavior before he
becomes an adult. Accordingly, the juvenile court modified D.F.’s placement
and awarded wardship of D.F. to the DOC. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[10] D.F. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it modified its
dispositional order and committed him to the DOC because there were “a
number of less restrictive settings” available to D.F., including foster care and
placement at a quasi-military training academy. 2 Appellant’s Br. at 18. It is
well settled that:
2
D.F. also briefly asserts that the “juvenile court did not attempt a less restrictive, more family like setting
before placing D.F. in the D.O.C.” Id. at 15. But D.F. is incorrect. The juvenile court first placed D.F. on
home detention with electronic monitoring and allowed him to live at home with his grandmother. When
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 5 of 8
The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a
delinquent child is within the sound discretion of the juvenile
court, subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the
child, the community’s safety, and the Indiana Code’s policy of
favoring the least harsh disposition. We will not reverse a
juvenile disposition absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.
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.
D.S. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 1081, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
[11] 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(1)(A) provides that “[i]f 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[.]”
[12] But, as this court has previously held:
Although less harsh options than commitment to an institution
are available for the juvenile court to utilize, “there are times
that failed, the court placed D.F. in a residential placement facility where he was allowed to visit his family at
his home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 6 of 8
when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the ‘best
interest’ of the juvenile and of society.” S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d
937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied (quoting A.D. v. State,
736 N.E.2d 1274, 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). Stated differently,
the law requires only that the disposition selected be the least
restrictive disposition that is “consistent with the safety of the
community and the best interest of the child.” See Ind. Code §
31-37-18-6.
D.S., 829 N.E.2d at 1085.
[13] Here, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed
D.F. in the DOC instead of with yet another less restrictive option. D.F.
originally agreed to an informal adjustment after he had been arrested for
breaking into two different vehicles. But only days after he agreed to that
informal adjustment, D.F. committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when
committed by an adult. As a result of the second arrest, the juvenile court
adjudicated D.F. a delinquent child and placed him on home detention with
electronic monitoring. But, again, within only one day of being placed with his
grandmother, D.F. cut off his ankle bracelet and ran away. The juvenile court
then placed D.F. in a residential facility, and D.F. unsuccessfully attempted to
escape after only a few weeks. And later while on leave from the residential
facility, D.F. took drugs, and he brought drugs back with him to the center.
D.F. then began writing sexually explicit and “borderline predatory” letters,
which caused the Anderson Center to no longer believe that they could
maintain the safety of the other residents. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 159.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 7 of 8
[14] The juvenile court gave D.F. multiple chances to change his behavior before it
modified his placement to the DOC. But, despite those chances, D.F.
continued to engage in illegal or inappropriate conduct. Based on D.F.’s
recurring inappropriate conduct while in less restrictive settings and the
probation officer’s belief that placing D.F. in the DOC would give him the best
opportunity for rehabilitation, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it placed D.F. in the DOC. We affirm the juvenile court’s
order.
[15] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 8 of 8