MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 21 2019, 10:07 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David L. Joley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General
Megan M. Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
D.W., November 21, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1087
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Andrea R. Trevino,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
The Honorable Carolyn S. Foley,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
02D07-1710-JD-1136
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] D.W., a delinquent child, appeals his placement with the Indiana Department
of Correction (“IDOC”). He contends that the juvenile court abused its
discretion in placing him with the IDOC and that the court could have chosen a
less restrictive placement. We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 20, 2017, then-fifteen-year-old D.W. became angry with his mother
so he grabbed her by the throat, pushed her into a bedroom, and would not let
her out. He also punched her in both thighs. His mother called the police to
report the domestic battery. D.W. left the scene, but officers located him
walking down the street away from the residence. Police escorted D.W. back to
the residence and interviewed both him and his mother. D.W. was taken into
custody and transported to the Allen County Juvenile Center (“ACJC”).
[3] The State filed a petition alleging that D.W. was a delinquent child for
committing battery, an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
Following a detention review hearing, D.W. was placed on “Informal
Operational Probation with family counseling and Critical Thinking.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 62. On March 26, 2018, a petition was filed alleging
that D.W. failed to attend school in violation of the terms of his informal
probation. The juvenile court held a detention review hearing and placed D.W.
on the “Detention Alternative Program” with an ankle monitor. Id. On May
1, 2018, D.W. was arrested for a new offense of “Leaving Home.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 2 of 7
Following a detention review hearing on the new case, D.W. was referred to
counseling. However, D.W. was ordered detained at the ACJC on his prior
case and ordered to participate in the “[T]hinking [E]rrors” program and to
undergo a psychological assessment. Id. Thereafter, D.W. was ordered placed
on conditional release to his father’s home on the Detention Alternative
Program with an ankle monitor. Following a final factfinding, D.W. admitted
that he committed the offense of domestic battery and was adjudicated a
delinquent child. He was continued on the Detention Alternative Program with
an ankle monitor and was ordered to participate in random urinalysis and to
take his medications as prescribed.1
[4] On August 29, 2018, a probation officer conducted a home visit at D.W.’s
father’s home. D.W.’s father reported that D.W.’s behaviors were becoming
more and more aggressive and that D.W. had made physical threats against
both him and D.W.’s brother. D.W.’s father also reported that D.W. was not
taking his medication as ordered by the juvenile court. Following a detention
review hearing, the juvenile court revoked D.W.’s conditional release and
ordered him detained at the ACJC.
[5] A dispositional hearing was held on September 25, 2018. The juvenile court
placed D.W. on suspended commitment to the IDOC pending his compliance
with the rules of formal probation and family counseling. In March 2019, a
petition for modification was filed alleging that D.W. had violated the terms of
1
D.W. had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 3 of 7
his probation by failing to abide by all laws and failing to attend school
regularly. During a hearing on the petition to modify, D.W. admitted to one of
the violations, and the juvenile court found D.W. to be a violent offender. The
court ordered that D.W. temporarily remain at the ACJC and participate in
educational services, a psychological assessment, and Thinking Error classes.
[6] Thereafter, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. In addressing D.W.,
the court noted that he had been “given some fairly significant services through
the years … through three separate informal adjustments … all of which were
deemed unsuccessful due to the commission of new offenses.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 11.
The court noted its disappointment that D.W. had been involved in recent
physical altercations while at the ACJC. The court explained to D.W.,
You’ve had probation. You’ve had informal adjustment. You’ve
had formal. You’ve had placement. You’ve had counseling,
counseling, counseling, counseling. You’ve been in counseling
since you were, what? Eight? … With you choosing not to utilize
the skills that I know that you’ve learned, you’re giving me
absolutely no choice here.
Id. at 13-14. The court then accepted the recommendation of the probation
department and ordered D.W. committed to the IDOC “for housing in a
correctional facility for children.”2 Appealed Order at 2. This appeal ensued.
2
According to the juvenile court, Allen County’s “Juvenile D.O.C.” is similar to a “secure residential
treatment facility” that “has a much lower recidivism rate than adult [DOC] does.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 4 of 7
Discussion and Decision
[7] D.W. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional decree. “A juvenile court is
accorded ‘wide latitude’ and ‘great flexibility’ in its dealings with juveniles.”
J.T. v. State, 111 N.E.3d 1019, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citation omitted),
trans. denied (2019). The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile
adjudicated a delinquent child is a matter within the sound discretion of the
juvenile court and will be reversed only if there has been an abuse of that
discretion. Id. “The juvenile court’s discretion in determining a disposition is
subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of
the community, and the policy of favoring the least-harsh disposition.” Id. 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 it. Id.
[8] The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation, not punishment. Id. Indiana
Code Section 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile court
must consider when entering a dispositional decree:
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 5 of 7
(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.
As is evident by the above-quoted statutory language, although Indiana Code
Section 31-37-18-6 requires that a juvenile be placed in the “least restrictive”
and most appropriate setting available, it also requires that such placement be
“consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.”
Thus, “the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the
child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d
382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans denied.
[9] Here, the record reveals that D.W. was given numerous opportunities at
rehabilitation and reformation of his behavior before the juvenile court finally
placed him with the IDOC. Specifically, D.W. repeatedly violated the terms of
numerous less restrictive placement alternatives. The juvenile court provided a
thoughtful and thorough explanation for its disposition and its belief that
D.W.’s best interest would be better served by placement with the IDOC. We
find no abuse of discretion. The juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1087 | November 21, 2019 Page 7 of 7
D.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion