MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 30 2020, 8:46 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
Linda L. Harris Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney at Law, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Kentland, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.R., September 30, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-JV-932
v. Appeal from the Jasper Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeryl F. Leach,
Appellee-Petitioner. Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
37C01-1912-JD-191
Mathias, Judge.
[1] A.R. appeals the Jasper Circuit Court’s order adjudicating him a juvenile
delinquent and committing him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”) until
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 1 of 6
he reaches the age of twenty-one. A.R. argues that the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it committed him to the Department of Correction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] A.R. has a significant history with our State’s juvenile justice system. His first
referral to the juvenile justice system occurred in July 2015 when he was eleven
years old. Approximately one year later, A.R. was adjudicated a delinquent for
disorderly conduct. He was placed in a residential treatment facility. While at
the facility he broke numerous rules, physically assaulted staff members, and
attempted to escape several times. As a result, A.R. was expelled from the
program in September 2016. A.R. was committed to the Pendleton Juvenile
Correctional Facility, and he was released approximately six months later in
March 2017.
[4] When he was released from the DOC, A.R. was placed in foster care. A.R. ran
away from his foster home, and thereafter, he was placed in another residential
treatment center. A.R. also ran away from the treatment center.
[5] In August 2017, A.R. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing
criminal mischief. A.R. was placed on probation, but four months later, he was
adjudicated a delinquent for committing an act which would constitute Level 5
felony burglary if committed by an adult. A.R. was committed to the
Logansport Juvenile Correctional Facility. After his twenty-two-month
commitment, he was placed in Campagna Academy in Lake County, Indiana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 2 of 6
[6] On October 23, 2019, fifteen-year-old A.R. ran away from Campagna and stole
a vehicle. On November 25, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition in Lake
Superior Court alleging that A.R. had committed acts that if committed by an
adult would constitute Level 6 felony auto theft, Class A misdemeanor theft,
Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, and Class C
misdemeanor operating a vehicle without a license. A.R. admitted that he had
committed unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. The case was transferred to
A.R.’s county of residence, Jasper County, for disposition.
[7] The Jasper Circuit Court held a dispositional hearing on February 18, 2020.
The State recounted A.R.’s history of delinquency and unsuccessful placements
in residential facilities and the DOC and argued that A.R. should be committed
to the DOC for his latest delinquency adjudication. A.R. focused on his
improved behavior and accomplishments in the weeks leading up to the
dispositional hearing to argue that the least restrictive placement was
appropriate. The juvenile court noted that A.R. had several opportunities to
correct his behavior in the past but failed to do so. Therefore, the court
committed A.R. to the DOC until the age of twenty-one. A.R. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] A.R. argues that his commitment to the DOC “was not consistent with the best
interests of the child, the safety of the community, nor the policy of favoring the
least-harsh disposition.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. The choice of the specific
disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child is a matter within the
discretion of the juvenile court. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 3 of 6
2008). Accordingly, we will only reverse where the juvenile court has abused
that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s
action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court or the reasonable, probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn
therefrom. Id.
[9] A juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings
with juveniles. Id. However, a juvenile court’s discretion is subject to the
following statutory considerations:
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.
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[10] A.R. argues that it was in his best interest to remain at Campagna Academy in
the secure residential wing. He notes his active participation in treatment at the
Academy in the weeks leading up to the dispositional hearing and the
psychologist’s evaluation recommending A.R.’s placement in a residential
facility so that he could benefit from therapeutic services available in that
placement. The therapist who had two sessions with A.R. prior to the
dispositional hearing praised A.R.’s participation in therapy and programming.
[11] The juvenile court determined that commitment to the DOC was appropriate
due to A.R.’s continued delinquent behavior and his need for a well-structured,
highly-restrictive environment. Appellant’s App. Vol. 4, p. 162. The juvenile
court noted that A.R.’s previous placements in residential facilities were not
successful. Tr. p. 22.
[12] A.R. has run away from residential facilities multiple times and committed his
most recent delinquent act after running away from Campagna. A.R.’s most
recent delinquency adjudication is his fourth in less than four years. During the
last four years, A.R. has received services while on probation and during his
placements in residential treatment facilities but has not demonstrated that he
has benefited from those services. The State’s accurately observes that A.R.’s
“history shows that even secure residential treatment facilities have not been
secure enough to prevent him from escaping, and when he escapes [A.R.]
engages in conduct that harms himself and the safety of the community.”
Appellee’s Br. at 11.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 5 of 6
Conclusion
[13] By his continued delinquent conduct, A.R. has shown that probation and
placement in residential facilities have not successfully rehabilitated him. We
therefore conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion when it
determined that commitment to the DOC was the most appropriate placement
for A.R. The DOC will provide A.R. with services in the more restrictive and
structured setting that A.R. requires. As the juvenile court noted, and as we
reemphasize, A.R.’s continued active participation in services may result in
placement in a residential facility if the DOC determines that A.R.’s improved
behavior warrants the placement.
[14] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dispositional order placing
A.R. in the DOC.
Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 6 of 6