MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 30 2019, 9:01 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
Jeremy P. Gooch Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Danville, Indiana
Samuel J. Dayton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.S., August 30, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-470
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Karen Love, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause No.
32D03-1901-JD-9
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
[1] After J.S. admitted to violating the conditions of his probation for a prior
juvenile adjudication by possessing marijuana and admitting to the new charge
of possessing marijuana, he was adjudicated a delinquent child. The juvenile
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 1 of 8
court entered an order that he be placed under supervised probation for a period
of six months and complete an inpatient substance abuse treatment program at
White’s Residential Treatment Facility. J.S. appeals, contending that while the
juvenile court had the authority to issue an order placing him in a residential
treatment facility, the juvenile court nonetheless abused its discretion by
entering its order without considering the statutory factors for juvenile
dispositional orders. We affirm.
[2] On January 9, 2019, J.S. was traveling eastbound in a car on US 40, also
referred to as Main Street, in Plainfield, Indiana. A Plainfield Police
Department officer observed J.S. disobey a red-light signal at the intersection of
Carr Road and East Main Street. After the officer stopped and approached the
vehicle, he detected an odor commonly associated with raw marijuana. The
officer informed J.S. that he suspected marijuana was in the vehicle. J.S. told
the officer that he had purchased twelve grams of marijuana and that it was
located in a compartment in the front of the car.
[3] J.S. was serving probation for a previous adjudication for possessing marijuana.
He had previously violated the terms of his probation by testing positive on two
drug screens and missing two other screens. Two days prior to the traffic stop,
J.S. appeared in court for those probation violations. The juvenile court
continued his probation in that case.
[4] On January 29, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition in which it alleged
that J.S. was a delinquent child for possessing marijuana. After the court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 2 of 8
authorized the filing of the petition, the parties appeared for the initial hearing
on February 4, 2019. At the hearing, J.S. admitted to the offense of possession
of marijuana, and, by agreement of the parties, proceeded to a disposition
hearing. The juvenile court, after hearing evidence from both parties, including
J.S.’s request to remain on home detention and the probation officer’s
preference that he be placed in an inpatient program, entered an order placing
J.S. on probation for six months, obeying a 9:00 p.m. curfew, and completing
the inpatient program at White’s Residential Treatment Facility. The juvenile
court entered an order finding that J.S.’s probation in the previous juvenile
adjudication should be terminated as unsuccessful.
[5] J.S. now appeals, not challenging the juvenile court’s authority to order him to
attend a residential treatment facility but challenging whether the juvenile court
properly considered the statutory factors for disposition prior to entering the
dispositional order.
[6] Once a child is adjudicated a delinquent child, the juvenile court then enters a
dispositional decree providing for the placement of the child, any sanctions, and
treatment. R.J.G. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. 2009). The purpose of
dispositional decrees is to promote rehabilitation of the juvenile. Id. (citing J.D.
v. State, 853 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 2006)). Ideally, the dispositional decree should be
formulated in such a fashion that the juvenile is deterred from committing more
offenses in the hope that the juvenile can “straighten out his life before the
stigma of criminal conviction and the resultant detriment to society is realized.”
Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 409 (Ind. 1987).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 3 of 8
[7] In choosing the correct disposition for the child, the juvenile court has a vast
array of options in selecting a dispositional decree specifically tailored for the
unique needs of the particular child. R.J.G., 902 N.E.2d at 806. However, the
juvenile court is required to consider the options set forth in Indiana Code
section 31-37-18-6 (1997), which provides as follows:
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.
[8] Thus, the juvenile court is given discretion to determine what is in the best
interest of the child but is required to consider the statutory factors in doing so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 4 of 8
J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). An abuse of discretion occurs
when the juvenile court’s dispositional order is clearly erroneous and against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the juvenile court or
the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom.
Id. On appeal from a juvenile adjudication and disposition, we do not reweigh
the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d
1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing J.V. v. State, 766 N.E.2d 412 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002)).
[9] Under the judicial temperance presumption, we generally presume that in a
proceeding tried to the bench, a court renders its decisions solely on the basis of
relevant and probative evidence. Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 28 (Ind.
2011). Although this cited case involves a criminal appeal as opposed to a
juvenile adjudication and disposition, we find that the same principles apply to
our review of this appeal.
[10] Here, the juvenile court heard evidence from J.S.’s probation officer that J.S.
had two positive screens for marijuana and had missed two drug screens, all of
which were in violation of the conditions of his probation. The probation
officer further testified that J.S. had dropped out of outpatient counseling. Two
days after being detained and having his probation continued for the probation
violations, J.S. was charged with the new violation. Further, J.S. admitted to
his probation officer that while he was on home detention, he found some
marijuana that he had hidden in his room at his mother’s house and used it the
night before meeting with his probation officer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 5 of 8
[11] Because of his marijuana use, J.S. was transferred to an alternative school. He
did not have behavioral issues necessitating the change, but the change was
made because he was missing school and was so far behind in his educational
progress. J.S. lives with his mother, who is in recovery for substance abuse
issues, and his father, who lives in another town, has also had substance abuse
issues.
[12] J.S. told the court that he started using marijuana at a young age because of
issues with his parents’ relationship. He indicated that he used marijuana to
help him sleep and not worry about things such as his poor performance in
school. He admitted that he suffers from anxiety about a variety of things
including his legal issues.
[13] J.S., in support of his argument, points to his testimony and his mother’s
testimony that he had recently sought help through a counseling and wellness
center and was prescribed medication to address his issues with ADHD. The
probation officer noted, however, that J.S. did not seek this additional
treatment until he and his mother learned that the probation officer would be
recommending that he be placed in a residential treatment facility. Further,
J.S.’s first instinct upon learning of the placement recommendation was to say
that he would leave his mother’s house. Additionally, at the time of the
hearing, J.S. was approximately a month away from his eighteenth birthday.
His mother disagreed with the placement in the residential facility in part
because of the two-hour drive from her home.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 6 of 8
[14] J.S.’s attorney argued to the juvenile court that he believed J.S.’s mother was
being more proactive in his care and had sought treatment facilities for him. He
acknowledged that it would have been better had J.S.’s mother acted sooner.
He stated that J.S.’s mother admitted that she “waited too long to do this” and
that she “dropped the ball on getting the treatment.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 28.
[15] Prior to announcing the disposition, and in response to J.S.’s attorney’s
suggestion that J.S. remain at home so he could continue with his new
medication, the juvenile court stated as follows:
And, if this doesn’t work and I don’t send him to residential now,
the closer he gets to 18 the harder it is to get him placed
anywhere and I think we’re left with, you know, the DOC as an
alternative. That [sic] not a very good alternative. Um, I’m just
sort of thinking out loud here in terms of where we are. I’d much
rather try the residential than to have to ever consider DOC.
Id. J.S. was instructed to bring his new medication with him along with the
prescription when he went to the residential facility.
[16] Here, there was ample relevant and probative evidence presented to the juvenile
court to inform the juvenile court’s dispositional decree. J.S. had been given
opportunities to address his problems with marijuana through probation,
intensive outpatient treatment, and home detention. Each of the options had
proven to be ineffective. J.S. had just had his probation continued two days
prior when he was detained on the new charge. The juvenile court heard
testimony from J.S.’s mother about her medical condition and how it might be
difficult to participate in J.S.’s treatment at the residential facility. After hearing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 7 of 8
that evidence, the juvenile court decided that the most appropriate placement
for J.S. was in a residential facility instead of a more restrictive placement at the
DOC. We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s disposition.
[17] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-470 | August 30, 2019 Page 8 of 8