G W v. State of Indiana

IN THE

Indiana Supreme Court
Supreme Court Case No. 23S-JV-246
FILED
G.W., Apr 10 2024, 11:09 am

Appellant (Respondent below) CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

–v–

State of Indiana,
Appellee (Petitioner below)

Argued: October 31, 2023 | Decided: April 10, 2024

Appeal from the Rush Circuit Court,
No. 70C01-2208-JD-62
The Honorable David E. Northam, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,
No. 22A-JV-3076

Opinion by Justice Goff
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Molter concur.
Justice Slaughter dissents with separate opinion.
Goff, Justice.

A juvenile court must, by statute, accompany its dispositional decree
with specific written findings and conclusions on the record. When the
juvenile court fails to comply with this statutory mandate, an appellate
court is left to speculate over the theory supporting the judge’s decision.
Such speculation is especially improper when disposition results in the
juvenile’s confinement in the Department of Corrections. What, then, is
the proper appellate remedy for curing a deficient dispositional order?

When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its
dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse.
Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Indiana Appellate
Rule 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance. This process adheres
to the applicable statutory requirements, preserves the distinct roles
played by our trial courts and appellate courts, and (in some cases)
justifies the cost of juvenile detention.

Because the juvenile here has been released from confinement, there’s
no need for us to stay the appellate proceedings. Instead, to dispose of the
case, we exercise our discretion under Appellate Rule 1 and remand to the
juvenile court for entry of its amended dispositional order.

Facts and Procedural History
In 2022, the State filed a delinquency petition in which it alleged that
G.W., then seventeen years old, had committed acts that would be theft
and criminal trespass if committed as an adult and that he had left home
without permission from a parent or guardian. App. Vol. 2, p. 34. When
G.W. allegedly committed further acts that amounted to theft and criminal
trespass if committed as an adult, the State amended its petition to add
those allegations. Id. at 41, 53. About a month later, the juvenile court
accepted G.W.’s admission to one allegation of theft and one allegation of
criminal trespass. Id. at 58–60. Not long after that, G.W. went missing,
apparently having fled the state with his adult sister. Id. at 73. Authorities
eventually located him in Mississippi and returned him to Indiana to
await his dispositional hearing. Id. at 61, 77. At that hearing, G.W. testified

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 2 of 12
that he was “lost” and “need[ed] guidance,” that he had left the state to
find work, and to “prove that [he] could do things on [his] own.” Tr. Vol.
2, pp. 34–35.

The court, having considered the predispositional report, rejected
G.W.’s request for home detention. The court instead ordered wardship of
G.W. to the Department of Correction (or DOC), observing that he had
“been involved in criminal activity” for “most of [his] teenage life” and
that it was the court’s “last chance to do something for” him. Id. at 43–45.
However, the court’s dispositional order included no specific findings to
support G.W.’s commitment, as required by statute. Instead, the order
contained a generic list of things the court “reviewed and considered,”
including the “statements, evidence and recommendations offered by the
parties”; the “best interests of the child and the child’s community”; and
the “various alternatives available for the care, treatment and
rehabilitation of this child.” App. Vol. 2, p. 80.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum
decision. G.W. v. State, No. 22A-JV-3076, 2023 WL 3476513, at *3 (Ind. Ct.
App. May 16, 2023). “Based upon the record,” and considering “G.W.’s
delinquent behavior and failure to adequately respond to prior attempts
at rehabilitation,” the panel found no abuse of discretion by the juvenile
court in committing G.W. to the DOC. Id. Acknowledging, however, the
order’s failure to comply with the applicable statutory requirements, the
panel remanded “for an amended dispositional order which includes the
written findings and conclusions required by the statute.” Id.

After the Court of Appeals had delivered its decision, but before it had
certified that decision, the juvenile court issued an amended dispositional
order which included the required statutory findings. State’s Ex. C.

G.W. petitioned for transfer, which we granted, thus vacating the Court
of Appeals’ decision. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 3 of 12
Standard of Review
An abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to a juvenile court’s
disposition of a delinquent child. K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2018). A court abuses its discretion by misinterpreting the law or “if
its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it.” T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023).

Discussion and Decision
Our decision today consists of two parts: In Part I, we consider the
issue of justiciability—namely, whether G.W.’s release from the DOC
renders this case moot. Concluding that the public-interest exception
applies to this otherwise moot case, we proceed to the substantive issue
before us, deciding on the proper appellate remedy for curing a deficient
dispositional order.

I. Our “public interest” exception to mootness allows
us to offer guidance on an issue likely to recur.
On July 10, 2023, G.W. “completed his obligation to the State,” resulting
in his discharge from the DOC without supervision. State’s Ex. A. On
October 17, after this Court granted G.W.’s petition for transfer, the State
moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that G.W. had “obtained
the relief he requested,” leaving “no further relief for this Court to grant.”
Mot. to Dismiss at 2.

We agree with the State that G.W.’s release from confinement renders
this case moot. Indeed, the “long-standing rule in Indiana courts” holds
that a case is “moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties
before the court.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121
N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32,
37 (Ind. 1991)). But Indiana also recognizes a public-interest exception to
the mootness doctrine. Id. A party may invoke—and a court may apply—
this exception when the litigated issue involves a “question of great public

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 4 of 12
importance which is likely to recur.” Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54
(Ind. 1991). We’re presented with such an issue here.

To begin with, we’ve long recognized the “paramount public
importance” of “the procedures implemented to determine the fates of
juvenile wards under the protection of the agencies of this State and the
conditions under which they are cared for.” Id. Indeed, juvenile
confinement, like any temporary civil commitment, has a “very significant
impact on the individual” and “constitutes a significant deprivation of
liberty that requires due process protection.” See E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. &
Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464, 467 (Ind. 2022) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Given “the fundamental interests at stake in
these cases,” and the need to balance those interests against the “safety of
individuals and the public,” appellate “review of the issues presented is
important, including the nuances of the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a commitment.” Id. at 465, 467.

Second, we find the issue here likely to recur. The average age of a
juvenile at intake into a correctional facility is sixteen years. Ind. Dep’t of
Correction, Annual Report: Changing Lives 18 (2021). Many of these
offenders may be committed for up to two years. See Ind. Code § 31-37-19-
10. But the average length of a juvenile’s stay is just over eight months for
“serious” offenses and just over four months for those deemed to have
committed a “minor” offense. Ind. Dep’t of Correction, Fact Card (July 1,
2023), http://tinyurl.com/5e73wjpf. The length of time that passes between
commitment and a decision on appeal can often take just as long or
longer. In this case, for example, the Court of Appeals issued its decision
more than five and a half months after the juvenile court committed G.W.
to the DOC. Cf. Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d at 53–54 (addressing an
otherwise moot claim given the brevity of a juvenile’s interim placement
pending a committee’s review and recommendation).

Finally, while appellate courts need not resolve every moot case
involving juvenile commitments, we “readily do so to address novel
issues or close calls, or to build the instructive body of law to help trial
courts make these urgent and difficult decisions.” E.F., 188 N.E.3d at 466.
And, here, we’re presented with a novel issue. As G.W. points out, this

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 5 of 12
Court has never been asked to determine the appropriate remedy when a
“juvenile court has failed to make the statutorily required findings.” Resp.
to Mot. to Dismiss at 4. We do so today.

II. What’s the proper appellate remedy for curing a
deficient dispositional order?
By statute, a “juvenile court shall accompany [its] dispositional decree
with written findings and conclusions upon the record,” whether in
approving, modifying, or rejecting the “dispositional recommendations
submitted in the predispositional report.” I.C. § 31-37-18-9(a) (the
Disposition Statute) (emphasis added). Specific findings include, among
other things, (1) the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement needs of
the child; (2) the need for participation by the parent, guardian, or
custodian in the plan of care for the child; (3) any services provided to the
child; and (4) the “court’s reasons for the disposition.” Id.

There’s no dispute that the juvenile court here neglected to include
these findings in its dispositional order. Rather, the parties’ arguments
center on the proper appellate remedy for curing that error.

G.W. initially argued that reversal and remand for further proceedings
were necessary, “not affirmance with remand to fill in the gaps,” as the
Court of Appeals concluded. Pet. to Trans. at 8. At oral argument, G.W.
shifted course, opposing affirmance but acknowledging that “reversal
may not be the appropriate remedy.” OA at 2:01–2:07. Instead, G.W.
proposes remand under Appellate Rule 66(C)(8) for the entry of findings
under Indiana Trial Rule 52(B). This avenue of relief, G.W. stresses, would
permit the juvenile court to “decide either to amend the order” or to
“change course based upon any changed circumstances that have
occurred since the issuance of the insufficient order.” Pet. to Trans. at 10;
see also OA at 6:37–7:04 (raising similar points). While amenable to this
procedure, the State raises concerns over “the stability of the juvenile’s
placement” pending remand. OA at 17:11–17:16.

With these arguments and concerns in mind, we proceed with guidance
to appellate courts for resolving cases like this one.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 6 of 12
 A. An appellate court should stay the proceedings—and
maintain the juvenile’s placement—pending remand for
the requisite findings.
When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its
dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse.
Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Appellate Rule
66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance. See Salk v. Weinraub, 271
Ind. 115, 121, 390 N.E.2d 995, 999 (1979). Appellate Rule 66(C)(8) expressly
permits a reviewing court to issue an order directing the trial court to
enter findings or to modify a judgment under Trial Rule 52(B). Trial Rule
52(B), in turn, applies when (among other circumstances) the required
“special findings of fact” by the trial court “are lacking, incomplete,” or
otherwise “inadequate in form or content.”1 T.R. 52(B)(2).

Pending remand, and unless the DOC deems otherwise,2 the appellate
court should maintain the juvenile’s placement in the DOC to avoid
disruption of rehabilitation and to ensure the safety of others. To limit
potential harm to the juvenile from the delay in proceedings, the appellate
court should instruct the juvenile court to issue its findings promptly—
typically within 30 days. See Salk, 271 Ind. at 122, 390 N.E.2d at 999 (setting
forth a similar timeframe); cf. Smith v. State, 558 N.E.2d 841, 844 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1990) (finding harmless a delay after remand to trial court for
specific statement of reasons supporting sentence where defendant made
no objection to hearing set 34 days later). Upon entry of those findings, the
clerk of the juvenile court must certify them to the clerk of the appellate

1We acknowledge, as G.W. points out, that “no appellate case has construed [Trial Rule] 52 in
the context of findings under [Indiana Code section] 31-37-18-9.” Pet. to Trans. at 11–12.
However, the Indiana Rules of Court as a whole “apply to all criminal proceedings” to the
extent they don’t conflict with our criminal rules, Ind. Crim. R. 1.1 (2024), and the “procedures
governing criminal trials apply in all matters not covered by the juvenile law,” I.C. § 31-32-1-
1.
2 When granted wardship by the court, “the DOC determines both the placement of the
juvenile and the duration of the placement.” D.C. v. State, 958 N.E.2d 757, 759 (Ind. 2011). See
also I.C. § 11-13-6-4 (vesting authority in the DOC to discharge the juvenile from commitment
at any time).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 7 of 12
court for inclusion in the record. See Salk, 271 Ind. at 122, 390 N.E.2d at
999.

During this time, “the appellate court retains jurisdiction to see that its
instructions are carried out.” Skendzel v. Marshall, 263 Ind. 337, 339, 330
N.E.2d 747, 749 (1975); see also Stepp v. Duffy, 686 N.E.2d 148, 152 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1997) (a trial court exercises only limited jurisdiction to carry out
“what it was requested to do by the appellate court”). If the juvenile court
fails to comply with the order on remand, whether intentionally or by
mistake, the juvenile “may promptly seek a writ of mandate from the
Court issuing the order to enforce compliance with its terms.” Skendzel,
263 Ind. at 339, 330 N.E.2d at 749.

This process, we believe, serves several important purposes.

To begin with, the juvenile court must enter a dispositional decree that
reflects “the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate
setting available” and that “imposes the least restraint on the freedom of
the child.” I.C. § 31-37-18-6. While commitment to the DOC “should be
treated as a last resort,” C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App.
2022), that option may be appropriate when “consistent with the safety of
the community and the best interest of the child,” I.C. § 31-37-18-6. To
properly balance these interests, the juvenile court must “carefully follow
the language and logic” of the Disposition Statute. See In re N.E., 919
N.E.2d 102, 108 (Ind. 2010) (internal citation omitted). And the reviewing
court must be able to say—conclusively—that the juvenile court
considered the factors it was required to consider.

Second, remand (rather than affirmance) preserves the distinct roles
played by our trial courts and appellate courts. Indeed, we generally agree
with G.W. that an “appellate court should not be in the business of
making findings.” OA at 7:49–7:51. That task falls squarely within the trial
judge’s capabilities, given his or her familiarity with the child and the
circumstances of the case. When clearly articulated, findings made under
the Disposition Statute “provide the parties and reviewing courts with the
theory upon which the judge decided the case so that the right of review
for error might be effectively preserved.” See Shafer v. Lambie, 667 N.E.2d
226, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). Without such findings, an appellate court is

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 8 of 12
left to speculate over what the trial judge was thinking. Cf. T.R. 52(D) (a
trial court’s failure to make required findings “shall not be resolved by
any presumption”). Such speculation is especially improper when, like
here, disposition results in the juvenile’s confinement.

Finally, a juvenile court’s findings may be necessary to justify the cost
of DOC placement.3 Upon a finding of delinquency, the juvenile court
must order a probation officer to prepare a predispositional report with
recommendations for the child’s care, treatment, rehabilitation, or
placement. I.C. § 31-37-17-1(a)(2). If the Department of Child Services (or
DCS) is responsible for paying the cost of the recommended placement or
service,4 that agency is entitled to review and either concur with the
report’s recommendations or offer an alternative proposal. I.C. § 31-37-17-
1.4. The report submitted to the juvenile court must include a statement of
DCS’s concurrence or DCS’s alternative proposal. I.C. § 31-37-17-1(a)(4).
The Disposition Statute, in turn, requires the juvenile court to accompany
its “dispositional decree with written findings and conclusions upon the
record concerning approval, modification, or rejection” of the report’s
recommendations. I.C. § 31-37-18-9(a). And if it disagrees with the report
and with any alternative recommendations made by DCS, the court must
accompany its decree with written findings explaining why those
recommendations are “unreasonable” or “contrary to the welfare and best
interests of the child.” I.C. § 31-37-18-9(b)(1). The court must also preserve
a complete record of “all documents referenced in the report” should DCS
exercise its right to appeal the dispositional decree. I.C. § 31-37-18-9(b)(2).
If DCS prevails on appeal, the agency is not responsible for any costs and

3The economic implications of our juvenile-justice system are significant. In 2021, the
maintenance of juvenile facilities throughout the state cost Hoosier taxpayers nearly $37
million. Ind. Dep’t of Correction, Annual Report: Changing Lives 19 (2021). And that figure
reflected an increase of nearly $780,000 from the previous fiscal year. See Ind. Dep’t of
Correction, Annual Report: Moving Forward 30 (2020).
4Generally, DCS is responsible for paying the costs of “services provided by or through” DCS
for any child. I.C. § 31-40-1-2(a). These “services” include “education, provision of necessary
clothing and supplies, medical and dental care, counseling and remediation, or any other
services or programs included in a dispositional decree or case plan ordered or approved by
the juvenile court for the benefit of a delinquent child.” I.C. § 31-40-1-1.5(c).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 9 of 12
expenses incurred for the juvenile’s “out-of-home placement” pending the
appeal, unless the juvenile court “made written findings that the
placement is an emergency required to protect the health and welfare of
the child.” I.C. § 31-37-18-9(e).

In short, the procedure set forth above ensures compliance with the
logic of our juvenile code, preserves the distinct roles played by our trial
courts and appellate courts, and (in some cases) justifies the cost of
juvenile detention.

Our final task is to dispose of the case before us.

B. To resolve this case, we deviate from our jurisdictional
rules and remand to the juvenile court for entry of its
amended dispositional order.
Under our Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellate court “acquires
jurisdiction on the date the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record is
noted in the Chronological Case Summary.” App. R. 8. The trial court, in
turn, loses its jurisdiction over the case, and any judgment it renders at
that point is void. Jernigan v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1044, 1046 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). This jurisdictional rule enables the “efficient presentation and
disposition of the appeal” and prevents “simultaneous review” of a
judgment by two courts. Id.

Here, the juvenile court noted the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s
Record on December 28, 2022, thus vesting jurisdiction in the Court of
Appeals (and divesting the juvenile court of its jurisdiction). See id. On
May 16, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued its memorandum decision. The
following month—on June 27, 2023—the juvenile court issued its
amended dispositional order in an effort to comply with the Disposition
Statute. State’s Ex. C, p. 3. The Court of Appeals, however, had not yet
certified its decision, so the juvenile court still lacked jurisdiction. See
App. R. 65(E) (prohibiting a trial court from taking “any action in reliance
upon the opinion or memorandum decision” of an appellate court until
after certification of that opinion or memorandum decision).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 10 of 12
 Arguably, the juvenile court retained the authority to correct the record
after jurisdiction had vested in the Court of Appeals. See Clark v. State, 727
N.E.2d 18, 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (setting forth limited circumstances in
which the trial court retains jurisdiction after perfection of an appeal). But
the amended dispositional order “was not merely a matter of correction of
a scrivener’s error, nor was it independent of the matters presented” in the
appeal. See Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Rather, the modified order directly implicated the issue raised on
appeal—whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing
G.W. to the DOC. Such action runs contrary to the policy underlying the
jurisdictional rule—enabling the efficient presentation and disposition of
the appeal and preventing the simultaneous review of a judgment by two
courts.5 See Jernigan, 894 N.E.2d at 1046.

In short, the juvenile court acted prematurely, rendering its amended
dispositional order void under our appellate rules. However, those same
rules “permit deviation” from their strict application. App. R. 1. Given
G.W.’s acknowledgment—and the State’s agreement—that the amended
dispositional order would suffice to resolve the case before us, see OA at
12:20–12:35, 22:55–23:02, we exercise our discretion under Appellate Rule
1 and remand to the juvenile court for entry of that order, without holding
this appeal in abeyance.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, we remand this case to the juvenile court for
entry of its amended dispositional order.

5After a child becomes a ward of the DOC, the juvenile court may, on its own motion,
reacquire jurisdiction to modify its original dispositional decree, but only after receiving
notice from the DOC of the child’s pending release from custody and within 30 days of
receiving that notice. I.C. § 31-30-2-3. Here, even if the juvenile court retained its jurisdictional
authority while the case was pending appeal, there’s nothing in the record to suggest that the
amended dispositional order was in response to a notice from the DOC of G.W.’s pending
release.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 11 of 12
Rush, C.J., and Massa and Molter, JJ., concur.
Slaughter, J., dissents with separate opinion.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Joel C. Wieneke
Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Andrew A. Kobe
Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 12 of 12
Slaughter, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion for two reasons.

A

First, the Court rightly observes this case is moot, but it nevertheless
decides the case’s merits under our public-interest exception to the
mootness doctrine. Under our judge-made exception, we empower
ourselves to adjudicate an otherwise moot case if the legal question is
important and likely to recur. As I have explained previously, our
mootness exception cannot be squared with our state constitution’s
structural limits on judicial power, properly understood. See Seo v. State,
148 N.E.3d 952, 968–71 (Ind. 2020) (Slaughter, J., dissenting). These limits,
reflected in our constitution’s separation-of-powers provision, Ind. Const.
art. 3, § 1, mean that we are confined to deciding “actual disputes between
adverse parties by issuing binding decrees that pronounce the parties’
rights and responsibilities and afford meaningful relief to the prevailing
party.” Seo, 148 N.E.3d at 969. The only mootness standard consistent with
separation of powers requires “an actual, ongoing controversy between
adverse parties.” Id. at 970. After all, “judges are not counselors or
academics; they are not free to take up hypothetical questions that pique a
party’s curiosity or their own.” Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, 144 S.
Ct. 771, 777 (2024).

Today’s judgment exceeds the judicial power because it provides G.W.
with no meaningful relief. After the court of appeals affirmed the trial
court’s judgment, the department of correction released G.W. without
supervision. G.W. thus “manage[d] to secure outside of litigation all the
relief he might have won in it.” Ibid. Because he is no longer in the
department’s custody, our award of relief is pointless and our opinion
purely advisory—the antithesis of an actual case or controversy implicitly
required by article 3, section 1. See Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.
1995) (observing that “our explicit separation of powers clause fulfills a
similar function” to article III of the federal constitution). To avoid
dismissal in our Court, G.W. needed to show that an actual controversy
remains despite his release from the department of correction, but he
failed to do so on this record. He did not show that he faces specific

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 1 of 3
adverse consequences in the future due to his commitment to the
department.

B

Second, on the merits, I disagree that the trial judge’s legal error
demands our review at all, much less does it warrant the relief the Court
prescribes today. Yes, the judge erred by ignoring the governing statute.
By its terms, the statute says a juvenile court “shall accompany [its]
dispositional decree with written findings and conclusions”. Ind. Code §
31-37-18-9(a). Yet, despite this requirement, the court made no such
findings and conclusions. Thus, its omission amounts to error.

But that does not end our inquiry. Not all errors are prejudicial and
thus reversible. If the error is harmless, the judgment below stands despite
the error. The Court holds, though, that any violations of this statute will
necessarily require remanding to the trial court and “holding the appeal in
abeyance”, rather than allowing an appellate panel to resolve the merits of
a juvenile’s placement. Ante, at 7. This conclusion goes too far. Requiring
an automatic remand in these circumstances strikes me as busywork. It
prevents an appellate court from reviewing the trial record independently
to determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing a
juvenile with the department of correction. Here, given G.W.’s extensive
history of delinquent behavior and his failure to respond to prior attempts
at rehabilitation, the appellate court was entitled to affirm the juvenile
court’s judgment.

Unlike the panel below, some appellate panels have opted not to scour
the record for evidence that either confirms or refutes a juvenile court’s
judgment. E.g., X.D. v. State, No. 19A-JV-896, at *10–11 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept.
30, 2019) (mem.); D.R. v. State, No. 84A05-0804-JV-233, 2008 WL 4408269,
at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2008) (mem.). That, of course, is a panel’s
prerogative. Without deciding the merits, a panel can simply remand with
instructions directing the juvenile court to make the findings and
conclusions the statute demands. One reason for requiring such detail and
specificity is to facilitate appellate review. As the Seventh Circuit observed
in a different context, “[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.” United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 2 of 3
Busy appellate judges can insist that juvenile courts do what the statute
requires of them. But if an appellate panel opts to do the juvenile court’s
legwork for it, I would not hold that the panel’s undertaking is necessarily
inadequate.

* * *

I have serious concerns with the Court’s resolution of the merits. But
because this case is moot, I would grant the State’s motion to dismiss and
not reach the merits.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-JV-246 | April 10, 2024 Page 3 of 3