MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 20 2018, 9:58 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
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
T.G., December 20, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-1611
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A.
Appellee-Petitioner Christofeno, Judge
The Honorable Deborah Domine,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-1704-JD-154
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] T.G. 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 April 2017, T.G. was adjudicated a delinquent for one count of criminal
trespass, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and two counts of
disorderly conduct, each a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.
T.G. was placed on probation and sent to Elkhart County’s juvenile-detention
center while the juvenile probation department investigated residential-
treatment options. While at the juvenile-detention center, T.G. was
hospitalized three times for high blood pressure. T.G. was previously
diagnosed with a blood-pressure issue that was controlled by medication. After
the hospital adjusted his medication, T.G. returned to the juvenile-detention
center.
[3] At a status hearing in May, T.G.’s probation officer reported that he had sent
multiple requests seeking placement for T.G. in a residential-treatment facility,
and that T.G. had been accepted by Rite of Passage. Concerned about T.G.’s
recent hospitalizations, the juvenile court ordered that the juvenile probation
department fully disclose T.G.’s medical condition to Rite of Passage before it
would place him in that facility. After reviewing T.G.’s medical records, Rite
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 2 of 8
of Passage declined to accept T.G. T.G.’s probation officer then reached out to
at least seven other residential facilities for possible placement, but they all
declined to accept T.G. See Tr. pp. 27-28. However, he was able to find a spot
for T.G. in Choices, an in-home intensive-services program, and recommended
that T.G. be released to his mother and ordered to participate in Choices. The
juvenile court ordered that T.G. be released from the juvenile-detention center
and participate in Choices. Seeing that T.G. had a low number of school
credits, the court also ordered that T.G. attend the second session of summer
school. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 57-58.
[4] At a status hearing in September, T.G.’s probation officer petitioned the
juvenile court for a modification of disposition, stating that T.G. violated his
probation by being expelled from summer school for “bringing alcohol on to the
school bus and then passing it around to other students[.]” Tr. p. 33. He also
reported that T.G. had “at least four absences and four tardies” since the
beginning of the school year and “was not following the rules at home.” Id. at
34. The juvenile probation department recommended that T.G. be found in
violation of probation and placed on GPS monitoring. The State argued that
T.G. should be placed in the DOC to get his behavior “under control.” Id. at
41. The juvenile court found that T.G. had violated his probation and ordered
that he be placed on GPS monitoring.
[5] Less than two weeks later, the juvenile court held another status hearing
because T.G. had violated his probation by leaving home without permission
and removing his GPS monitor. T.G.’s probation officer also reported that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 3 of 8
T.G. had been suspended from school for a week for trying to fight a peer. He
stated that the juvenile probation department had been dealing with T.G. “for
five years” and recommended that T.G. be considered a candidate for the DOC
because T.G. is “high risk” and “a danger to himself because he’s not taking his
medicine.” Id. at 55. The court ordered a continuation of its existing orders
and placed T.G. back on GPS monitoring. Ten days later, the juvenile court
held another status hearing because T.G. had, once again, violated his
probation by removing his GPS monitor. Against the recommendation of the
juvenile probation department, the court ordered that T.G. be placed back on
GPS monitoring. The juvenile court told T.G. that it was “going to give [him]
one more chance.” Id. at 71. At a status hearing in October, T.G. had made
“positive progress” and the juvenile court ordered a continuation of its existing
orders. Id. at 73.
[6] In February 2018, T.G. was hospitalized for blood-pressure issues. The juvenile
court held a status hearing as scheduled and heard from the juvenile probation
department regarding T.G.’s progress. T.G.’s probation officer reported that
T.G. had tested positive for marijuana twice since September 2017 and that in
January 2018 he “had a major blow up at school[.]” Id. at 81. After a verbal
altercation with another student, T.G. was placed in a classroom when he
began “throwing furniture, kicking furniture, punching walls, throwing things
off desks.” Id. The juvenile probation department recommended a
continuation of the existing orders so that T.G. remained on GPS monitoring.
The court agreed and continued its existing orders. At a status hearing in early
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 4 of 8
April, T.G.’s mother reported that he was missing. She told the court that “on
Easter, he came in the house” but then he “disappeared.” Id. at 87. The
juvenile court stated that it hoped T.G. was “okay since he does have health
issues.” Id. T.G. was found on April 13.
[7] After T.G. was located, the juvenile probation department petitioned for a
modification of disposition. In May, the juvenile court held the dispositional
hearing. T.G.’s probation officer reported that in March, T.G. had been
arrested for driving a car without a license and was with an eighteen-year-old
passenger, who was also arrested for possession of stolen items and possession
of a loaded handgun without a license. See id. at 88. After T.G.’s mother
picked him up from the police station, he left home without permission and was
gone for more than a month. T.G.’s probation officer also stated that T.G. had
not attended school or drug treatment and tested positive for marijuana. He
reiterated that he previously attempted to place T.G. in a residential-treatment
facility but at least seven different facilities had denied T.G. See id. at 90. He
further emphasized that “[T.G.’s] been in our system for years” and has
violated probation numerous times in prior cases. Id.; see also Appellant’s App.
Vol. II pp. 90-93. The juvenile probation department recommended that T.G.
be found in violation of his probation and that the juvenile court make him a
ward of the DOC.
[8] Following the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered that T.G. be
made a ward of the DOC. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 114. The court
reasoned:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 8
[T]he Court finds [T.G.] admits he left home without permission
and was gone for more than a month, he drove a car without a
license, he has not attended school, not attended [therapy], tested
positive for [m]arijuana and he has failed to actively engage in
treatment and he was arrested with an eighteen year old who was
in possession of a gun. Attempts have been made to place [T.G.]
in a residential placement, but his health precludes placement.
The [DOC] can address medical condition and [T.G.’s]
behavioral needs.
Id. at 113.
[9] T.G. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[10] T.G. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by making him a
ward of the DOC. 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 choices for juveniles
who have 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.” Although options less
harsh than commitment to an institution are available for the juvenile court to
use, “there are times when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the
‘best interest’ of the juvenile and of society.” D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 6 of 8
1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quotation omitted). “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.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6). The specific disposition of a
delinquent child is within the juvenile court’s discretion. K.S. v. State, 849
N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006). We will reverse only for an abuse of discretion,
namely a decision that 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. T.G. argues that placement in the DOC
was not in his best interests and that his behavior is not “a threat to the
community.” Appellant’s Br. p. 14.
[11] First, T.G. challenges the juvenile court’s best-interest determination by
claiming that “[c]ommunity resources could have been better utilized to serve”
his interests, i.e., his blood-pressure issues. Id. at 13. To support this claim, he
appears to rely on the juvenile court’s statement that “[a]ttempts have been
made to place [T.G.] in a residential placement but [his] health condition
precludes that placement[.]” Id. at 8. At the dispositional hearing, T.G.’s
probation officer stated that since May 2013 he had attempted to address all
T.G.’s issues within the community and previously contacted “at least seven”
residential-treatment facilities who all declined to accept T.G. Tr. p. 90. The
probation officer also stated that the DOC is capable of meeting T.G.’s medical
needs. In his brief, T.G. does not acknowledge the juvenile probation
department’s extensive efforts to keep him in the community, nor does he show
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 7 of 8
that DOC cannot meet his medical needs. As such, we find placement in the
DOC was in T.G.’s best interests.
[12] Regarding the safety of the community, the record shows that T.G. repeatedly
violated his probation when he passed out alcohol to other children on a school
bus; got so upset at school that he ended up “throwing furniture, kicking
furniture, punching walls, throwing things off desks,” id. at 81; used marijuana;
and drove a car without a license with an eighteen-year-old passenger who had
a loaded handgun. See id. at 88.
[13] Furthermore, T.G. has an extensive history of delinquent activity—he has been
involved with the juvenile probation department for multiple cases, spanning
over five years. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 90-93. During this time, T.G.
has been offered countless rehabilitative services, including: formal and
informal probation, residential placement at Rite of Passage, the Elkhart
County Juvenile Detention Center, drug and alcohol education programs, GPS
monitoring, medication management, and in-home intensive services through
Choices. But T.G. has not responded to treatment and has exhausted the
juvenile court’s resources. The only viable option was for T.G. to be made a
ward of the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court.
[14] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1611 | December 20, 2018 Page 8 of 8