MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 14 2020, 8:38 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
Nancy A. McCaslin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General of Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Steven Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
K.H., July 14, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-JV-129
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A.
Appellee-Petitioner Christofeno, Judge
The Honorable Deborah Domine,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-1804-JD-140
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] K.H. appeals the juvenile court’s modification of disposition order committing
him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), arguing that the juvenile
court erred by not placing him in a more rehabilitative environment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On April 13, 2018, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that then-
thirteen-year-old K.H. was delinquent for committing an act that would be
Class A misdemeanor theft had it been committed by an adult. According to
the petition, K.H. and two other juveniles allegedly took toy dart guns from a
Walmart store in Elkhart without paying for them. K.H. admitted to the
allegations against him. Consequently, on June 6, 2018, the juvenile court
adjudicated K.H. to be delinquent, placed him on six months of good behavior, 1
and ordered that he participate in individual therapy.
[3] From that point on, K.H.’s behavior only worsened:
• On September 20, 2018, K.H. was suspended from school after
violating the rules and arguing with his teacher. The school then
placed K.H. in its after-hours program to assist with his ongoing
issues. During this time, K.H. failed to complete case management
and therapy as per the June 6, 2018, juvenile court order.
• In November 2018, K.H. was again suspended from school due to
his truancy. Plus, on November 28, 2018, K.H. threatened his
1
The juvenile court never explains what “good behavior” means as a disposition. At the conclusion of the
June 6, 2018, hearing, the juvenile court states that “I’m placing you [K.H.] under six months good behavior
and that good behavior can be extended into probation if you are not doing what needs to be done.” Tr. Vol.
II p. 11-12. It is our estimation then that “good behavior” is some mitigated form of probation, with fewer
conditions and/or restrictions attached.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 7
grandmother, who reportedly tried to seek a restraining order
against him. Accordingly, on December 4, 2018, the juvenile court
modified K.H.’s disposition order by placing him on probation,
fitting him with an electronic monitor, and ordering him to attend
alternative school daily.
• After receiving reports that K.H. was planning on joining a gang,
on January 16, 2019, the juvenile court intervened and arranged
for transportation so that he could attend his alternative school.
• On February 20, 2019, K.H. admitted to committing another act
that would be Class A misdemeanor theft had it been committed
by an adult. Thus, the juvenile court adjudicated him as
delinquent and admonished K.H. to attend his schooling. Further,
the juvenile court placed K.H. in the Juvenile Detention Center
and stated that it would release K.H. once he earned three school
credits. K.H. eventually earned those three credits and was
released on probation to his mother’s home.
• In June 2019, officers from the Elkhart City Police Department
arrested K.H. because he was walking on a city street while
smoking a cigar and refused to identify himself. On June 24, 2019,
the juvenile court modified K.H.’s disposition order, directing
K.H. to obtain an addictions assessment and to have lunch with a
police officer as part of the “Lunch With a Cop” program.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 87.
• On October 10, 2019, the juvenile court found that K.H. had
violated his probation by missing five probation appointments,
failing all his classes, and attempting to leave the country to visit
his brother without permission. The juvenile court then ordered
that K.H. participate in additional tutoring services, not have
contact with his brother, and attend a meeting with his mother to
discuss the future of his education.
• Upon learning that K.H. was still not attending school or therapy
sessions, on November 14, 2019, the juvenile court again placed
K.H. in the Juvenile Detention Center and had him undergo a
psychological assessment.
• Following his November 27, 2019, release from the Juvenile
Detention Center, K.H. was placed on home detention.
Nevertheless, K.H. violated curfew, failed to attend another
psychological evaluation, and neglected to re-enroll in school. The
juvenile court ordered that K.H. be detained and placed again in
the Juvenile Detention Center.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 7
[4] Following a December 23, 2019, hearing, the juvenile court modified K.H.’s
disposition order by placing him in the DOC. In its order, the juvenile court
stated that:
The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to be
removed from the home environment; the child has special needs
that require services for care and treatment that cannot be
provided in the home and he refuses treatment that is intended to
diminish risk.
The Court finds that reasonable efforts were made by the
Probation Department to prevent or eliminate the need for
removal of the child.
Id. at 133. K.H. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] K.H.’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court erred when it placed
him in the DOC. Specifically, K.H. contends that the juvenile court did not
consider a more rehabilitative environment before modifying the disposition
order.
[6] We will reverse a juvenile court’s placement of a delinquent minor only if the
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before it. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 216-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The choice
of a disposition for a juvenile is within the sound discretion of the juvenile
court, and it is accorded wide flexibility in making that judgment. E.L. v. State,
783 N.E.2d 360, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). That disposition is subject, however,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 7
to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the community’s
safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id.
[7] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6(1) states that a juvenile court shall enter a
dispositional decree that is “in the least restrictive (most family like) and most
appropriate setting available; and . . . [is] consistent with the best interest and
special needs of the child[.]” However, even if less restrictive options are
available, a juvenile court’s placement of a juvenile in the DOC is not
erroneous when “earlier attempts at rehabilitation through less restrictive means
were unsuccessful.” D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[8] While the goal of child placement within the juvenile court system is
rehabilitation and not punishment, R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010), the ultimate decision to place K.H. in the DOC was still
appropriate, and the juvenile court did not err by doing so.
[9] When presented with multiple opportunities for rehabilitation, K.H. has shown
few signs of progress at any placement. When he was allowed to stay at home
and attend school like any normal student, K.H. constantly skipped his classes,
disobeyed the juvenile court’s orders, and failed to attend his case management
and therapy sessions. When he was placed in the Juvenile Detention Center, he
would complete his short-term goals, only to violate the terms of the disposition
order once he returned home. And when he was on supervised probation, K.H.
either committed some sort of illegal act such as theft or smoking, fled from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 5 of 7
home, tried to leave the country, attempted to join a gang, or failed to appear at
mandatory probation meetings regarding the future of his education.
[10] This Court has already held that “violation of a single condition of probation is
sufficient to revoke probation.” M.J.H. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 376, 377 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2003). Yet, the juvenile court chose time and time again to allow K.H. to
remain on supervised probation or home detention even after multiple
violations. K.H.’s constant run-ins with the law and delinquency adjudications
are further evidence that he has no interest in rehabilitation through the current
least restrictive resources available.
[11] K.H. disagrees, arguing that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it
made K.H. a ward of the [DOC] without first placing him in a residential
facility for rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 14. In the past, this Court has held
that a delinquent juvenile’s placement in the DOC may still be appropriate even
if less restrictive or less harsh alternatives are available. K.A. v. State, 775
N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Given K.H.’s questionable and, at
times, dangerous behavior of committing theft, frequently skipping school,
threatening family members, violating probation multiple times, and fleeing his
home, placement in the DOC is an appropriate option. See J.B. v. State, 849
N.E.2d 714, 718-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that juvenile’s placement in
DOC was warranted after violating probation, committing new offenses, and
failing to take advantage of prior opportunities for treatment).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[12] Furthermore, the juvenile court has already given K.H. numerous chances for
reform and could have ordered placement in the DOC at an earlier time;
nevertheless, the juvenile court here showed leniency and exhausted all options.
Consistent with K.H.’s best interests and the safety of the surrounding
community, it was not erroneous for the juvenile court to modify K.H.’s
disposition by placing him in the DOC.
[13] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 7 of 7