A.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 15, 2020
• Docket: 20A-JV-442
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 15 2020, 9:14 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 Katherine N. Worman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Courtney L. Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.M., July 15, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JV-442 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Brett J. Niemeier, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge The Honorable Renee A. Ferguson, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 82D04-2001-JD-11

Riley, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 1 of 9 STATEMENT OF THE CASE [1] Appellant-Defendant, A.M., appeals the juvenile court’s decision to commit her

to the Department of Correction (DOC), following her admission to domestic

battery, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE [3] A.M. presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the juvenile

court abused its discretion when it committed A.M. to the DOC.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [4] On January 3, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that A.M.

had committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, a Class

A misdemeanor intimidation, and a Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if

committed by an adult. On January 15, 2020, during a hearing, A.M. admitted

that when her mother attempted to take her cellphone away, she “went to grab

it from her” and caught her mother’s hair in the process. (Transcript Vol. II, p.

11). Based on this admission, the juvenile court adjudicated A.M. to be

delinquent for having committed what would be a Class A misdemeanor

domestic battery if committed by an adult. The State agreed to dismiss the

other Counts. During this proceeding and following her admission, A.M. was

advised not to speak out of turn, to which she replied, “I don’t care what you

say, honestly. If I don’t listen to my Mom, what makes you think I’m gonna

listen to you.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 13). The juvenile court cautioned A.M. that she Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 2 of 9 would be removed from the hearing if she refused to follow directions, to which

A.M. responded, “well let’s go then.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 13). A.M. was

subsequently removed from the proceeding.

[5] In preparation for the dispositional hearing scheduled for January 29, 2020, a

predispositional report was prepared by the probation department. A.M.’s

mother reported that she has a strained relationship with her daughter and

indicated that A.M. is physically and verbally aggressive toward her younger

brother. A.M.’s behavior becomes worse when mother attempts to impose

“consequences.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 51). She advised that A.M.

needed help, but would “only get it if she’s forced” and admitted that A.M. was

“out of her control.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 44). Mother warned that she

believed A.M. was prostituting herself or engaged in sex trafficking because she

had found a profile for A.M. on a website that appeared to offer

“companionship and sexual favors.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 52). Mother

located more than twenty videos on A.M.’s cellphone in which A.M. was

engaged “in sex acts with different men in every video” and nude photographs

of A.M. in which she was engaged in “lewd and sexual acts.” (Appellant’s

App. Vol. II, p. 52).

[6] The probation department also compiled a list of A.M.’s juvenile delinquent

history, which was comprised mainly of battery adjudications and leaving home

without permission. Including the instant offense, A.M. has received twenty

referrals to juvenile court. Of these twenty referrals, ten occurred during 2019,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 3 of 9 which resulted in two juvenile adjudications. A.M. had been released from the

Youth Care Center approximately a month prior to the instant charge.

[7] A.M. has been diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder in 2015, and, at a

later time, with Conduct Disorder and Impulse Control and Narcissistic

Personality Disorder. Based on these diagnoses and “due to her prior failed

placements and lack of desire to change or improve,” A.M. was placed in the

Indiana Girls School. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 53). To treat her mental

health issues, A.M. received inpatient services from Child’s Place, Resource,

Harsha Behavioral Center, and Youth Villages. During these placements, A.M.

received individual therapy, group therapy, and family therapy. She was placed

on psychiatric medication to treat her symptoms. However, when she

committed the instant domestic battery, A.M. had not “engaged in any

therapeutic services and [was] not currently on any medication.” (Appellant’s

App. Vol. II, p. 53).

[8] On January 29, 2020, following argument by the parties, the juvenile court

ordered A.M. committed to the DOC. The juvenile court noted that A.M. had

received “prior DCS services, prior probation, secure detention at the Youth

Care Center, DOC commitments, prior acute hospitalization at Deaconess

Cross Pointe, inpatient services from Child’s Place, inpatient services at

Resource, inpatient services from Harsha Behavioral, and inpatient services

from Youth Villages in Memphis, Tennessee.” (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 19-20). Despite

these services, the juvenile court took note of A.M.’s admission that she was

unable to function in her home. The court found that A.M. “engage[d] in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 4 of 9 behavior that is dangerous to her” and “may have been . . . a victim of human

trafficking.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 20). Accordingly, the juvenile court concluded that

A.M. presented a “significant danger to herself” and the only remaining option

before the juvenile court was commitment at the DOC. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 20).

[9] A.M. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION [10] A.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed

her to the DOC as it was not the least restrictive placement option available.

The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to

the sound discretion of the juvenile court, subject to the welfare of the child, the

safety of the community, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.

E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). On review, we may

overturn the juvenile court’s disposition order if we find that the court abused

its discretion, which occurs if its actions are clearly against the logic and effect

of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be

drawn therefrom. Id.

[11] As an initial matter, we observe that the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly

different from the criminal justice system. Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408

(Ind. 1987). Specifically, the goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation so that

the youth will not become a criminal as an adult. Id. Accordingly, juvenile

courts have a variety of placement choices for juveniles who have delinquency

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 5 of 9 problems, none of which are considered sentences. Id. Indiana Code section

31-37-18-6 provides:

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.

[12] A.M. directs our attention to D.P. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 767, 771 (Ind. Ct. App.

2003), in which this court determined that the juvenile court abused its

discretion when it awarded guardianship of D.P. to the DOC. The D.P. court

based its decision to reverse the juvenile court on two factors: D.P.’s special

circumstances and Indiana’s policy favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. at

769-70. As for D.P.’s special circumstances, the court noted that D.P.’s I.Q.

was only sixty-five and that he had been held back in his third and fourth grade

school years. Id. at 770. Similarly, although D.P. was beginning the ninth

grade, he performed at either a third- or fifth-grade level. Id. Additionally,

D.P. was being medicated for ADHD, which is characterized by unusually

impulsive behavior. Id. As for Indiana’s policy favoring the least harsh

disposition, the D.P. court acknowledged that placement with the DOC may

still be appropriate even if less restrictive alternatives are available. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 6 of 9 Nevertheless, the D.P. court concluded that those were not the circumstances

with which it was presented because D.P. was not unresponsive to less

restrictive alternatives, inasmuch as his only other contact with the juvenile

system was his successful completion of probation following a battery

adjudication. Id. at 770-71. Accordingly, the court held that the juvenile court

should have suspended D.P.’s confinement with the DOC. Id. at 771.

[13] Here, neither A.M.’s interests nor those of her community are best served by a

placement outside of the DOC. Unlike D.P., A.M.’s history indicates that her

many placements, both in and out of the DOC, have failed to reform her. A.M.

has had the benefit of DCS services, probation services, secure detention

services at Youth Care Center, DOC commitments, acute hospitalizations at

Deaconess Cross Pointe, and several inpatient services. Despite all these efforts

to reform and rehabilitate A.M.’s behavior, she continued to engage in a pattern

of disorderly and disruptive actions. The instant cause constituted A.M.’s 20th

referral to the juvenile probation department and A.M.’s behavior before and

during her dispositional hearing made it abundantly clear that A.M. had no

intention of complying with even the most simple request. A.M. had only been

in the community thirty days before she committed what would be a Class A

misdemeanor domestic battery against her mother, who advised the juvenile

court that A.M. was “out of her control.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 44).

[14] A.M. argues that the juvenile court failed to consider her “special

circumstances” and that, despite a recommendation for “stable placement” she

has not received a “stable placement” or “supportive family therapy.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 7 of 9 (Appellant’s Br. p. 9). However, the record reflects that A.M.’s own behavior

issues made stable placement with her family impossible. A.M.’s mother

advised that she and A.M. “did not get along” and have a strained relationship

due to A.M.’s history of aggression towards her mother and younger sibling.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 51). A.M.’s history of documented mental health

issues indicates that she has either not responded to attempts for treatment or

actively rebelled against them. In the past, the juvenile court unsuccessfully

attempted to address A.M.’s mental health issues by placing her in inpatient

services. During these placements, A.M. had access to individual therapy,

group therapy, and family therapy. Yet, A.M. did not engage in any of these

therapeutic services. Through time, A.M.’s behavior has only worsened and

had now escalated to the point where she is engaged in prostitution or sex

trafficking.

[15] Noting the many failures of less-restrictive placements to cause A.M. to reform

herself, the juvenile court ordered A.M. committed to the DOC. We see little

in the record to suggest that a less-restrictive placement will be successful this

time. Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court’s decision to order A.M.

committed to the DOC was not an abuse of its broad statutory discretion. The

evidence before us supports a conclusion that A.M. is more likely to benefit

most from a highly restrictive placement in the DOC, as it is the only placement

that both ensures A.M. has access to treatment while preventing her from

committing new delinquent acts.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 8 of 9 CONCLUSION [16] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its

discretion when it committed A.M. to the DOC.

[17] Affirmed.

[18] Mathias, J. and Tavitas, J. concur

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 9 of 9