MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 17 2020, 7:40 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Glen E. Koch II Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Boren, Oliver & Coffee, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Martinsville, Indiana
Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.R., September 17, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-3026
v. Appeal from the Brown Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mary H. Wertz,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
07C01-1905-JD-39
07C01-1908-JD-66
Baker, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-3026 | September 17, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] On November 27, 2019, J.R., a juvenile, was placed in the Department of
Correction (DOC) after admitting to violating probation, Leaving Home
Without Permission, and committing acts that would have been Residential
Entry, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult,1 and Theft of a Firearm, a
Level 6 felony if committed by an adult.2 J.R. now appeals the juvenile court’s
order placing him in the DOC. We affirm.
Facts
[2] In November of 2018, J.R. admitted delinquency for leaving home without the
permission of a parent, guardian or custodian and was placed on probation.
J.R. violated the terms of that probation, and he was placed at Wernle Youth
and Family Treatment Center. After four escapes from Wernle, he was moved
to Lutheran Child and Family Services. He escaped from Lutheran on May 5,
2019. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 9.
[3] Seventeen days later, on May 22, 2019, authorities located J.R. and took him
into custody. He was adjudicated a delinquent child for escape, a Level 5
felony if committed by an adult, and criminal mischief, a Class A misdemeanor
if committed by an adult. He was sentenced to forty-five days of secure
detention and three months of probation. He was detained at Dickinson
1
Ind. Code §35-43-2-1.5.
2
Ind. Code §35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-3026 | September 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5
Juvenile Justice Center. On July 27, 2019, he was released into his father’s
custody and received services through the Youth Villages Intercept Program.
[4] On August 6, 2019, J.R. committed leaving home without permission and
residential entry, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. On August 21,
2019, he left home without permission again, and committed theft of a firearm,
a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. The State filed a new petition
alleging delinquency based on these incidents and petitioned to modify the
previous dispositional decree.
[5] On August 26, 2019, J.R. was placed at Dickinson Juvenile Justice Center until
his dispositional hearing. He committed seven infractions there between
August 26 and November 1.
[6] On October 23, 2019, J.R. admitted to violating probation and to three of the
counts against him: residential entry, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult,
theft of a firearm, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and leaving home
without permission. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 87.
[7] On November 27, 2019, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. A
probation officer was tasked with finding three facilities that might take J.R.
outside of the DOC. Tr. Vol. II p. 138. One of those facilities, Campagna
Academy, was willing to accept J.R., but the probation officer recommended
against the placement because of J.R.’s history of escapes. Id. at 139. She
feared that if J.R. escaped Campagna, located near Gary, it would be difficult to
find him. Id. at 142. “I worry about the distance and the area,” she said. Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-3026 | September 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5
139. Additionally, the Department of Child Services advised against sending
anyone to Campagna. Id. at 141. J.R.’s father asked that J.R. be sent to
Campagna, whereas J.R.’s mother argued against that placement, fearing her
son would again escape. Id. at 167-171, 173.
[8] At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered that J.R. would be
committed to the DOC and transferred to Logansport Juvenile Correctional
Facility. In making this decision, the juvenile court observed that there was no
other “realistic option” for J.R., as he had repeatedly escaped his past
residential placements, and treatment at home had also failed. Id. at 181. J.R.
now appeals this placement.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Placement of a juvenile who is adjudged delinquent is within the discretion of
the juvenile court. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
This broad discretion 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.; see also Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (listing statutory factors). We
will reverse only if the disposition is clearly erroneous and against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable,
probable, and actual inferences that may be drawn therefrom. M.C., 134
N.E.3d at 458.
[10] J.R. argues that the juvenile court failed to adequately consider alternatives to
the DOC placement, rendering its decision erroneous. We disagree. Since
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-3026 | September 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5
2018, J.R. has been on probation, participated in residential programs, and been
placed at home. In all these settings, he has failed to obey the rules and, at
times, the law. He violated his probation, escaped his residential programs,
repeatedly left home without permission, and committed new, more serious
delinquent acts.
[11] Despite this track record, the juvenile court seriously weighed the possibility of
sending J.R. to another residential facility. However, the court ultimately
observed, “I can’t in good faith send you to another residential placement that I
don’t have faith you will comply with.” Tr. Vol. II p. 181. The court ordered
J.R. placed in the DOC because, “I do not believe there’s another realistic
option.” Id. J.R.’s record, the probation officer’s testimony, the
recommendation of the Department of Child Services, and his mother’s express
wishes all support this decision. Id. at 138-39, 140, 173. We find that the
juvenile court did not err in ordering that J.R. be committed to the DOC.
[12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-3026 | September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5