Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before Feb 27 2012, 8:31 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MARK SMALL GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
N.L., ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 52A02-1110-JV-1051 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Daniel C. Banina, Judge Cause Nos. 52D02-1105-JD-16, 52D02-1010-JD-52 & 52D02-1012-JD-57
February 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge Case Summary
N.L. appeals his commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction.
Specifically, he contends that it is not the least restrictive and most appropriate placement
for him. In light of N.L.’s growing juvenile history, conduct while on probation, and
failure to participate in services offered to him, we conclude that the juvenile court did
not abuse its discretion in committing him to the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
In March 2011, the Miami County Juvenile Court adjudicated sixteen-year-old
N.L. a delinquent child and placed him on probation after he admitted to three offenses
that would be crimes if committed by an adult: burglary, theft, and possession of
marijuana. Appellant’s App. p. 14. The terms of N.L.’s probation required that N.L. not
commit another delinquent act or criminal offense, attend school and maintain good
grades, report to the probation office as ordered, and observe court-ordered curfew. N.L.
was also required to participate in home-based services and perform fifty hours of
community service.
Just two months later, on May 6, the State filed a petition to modify N.L.’s
probation based upon allegations of harassment and intimidation stemming from N.L’s
interaction with a male acquaintance. On May 9, the State filed a delinquency petition in
the new case alleging three offenses: two counts of intimidation, Class A misdemeanors
if committed by an adult, and one count of harassment, a Class B misdemeanor if
committed by an adult. Id. at 23.
2 An initial hearing on the State’s petitions was set for May 18, 2011. N.L. did not
appear at the hearing, and his whereabouts were unknown for more than four months.
Upon returning to his father’s home in September, N.L. was transported to the Kinsey
Youth Center in Kokomo. The State filed a second petition for modification of N.L.’s
probation on September 12, alleging violations of N.L.’s probation occurring while
N.L.’s whereabouts were unknown, including resisting law enforcement and failing to
attend school, report to the probation department, abide by curfew, participate in services,
and complete community service. Id. at 42. N.L. subsequently admitted to violating the
terms of his probation as alleged in the State’s May 6 and September 12 petitions to
modify his probation. N.L. also admitted to the allegations of delinquency in the State’s
petition filed on May 9.
A dispositional hearing was held in October 2011. At the hearing, N.L.’s
probation officer, Mandy Miller, recommended that N.L. be placed in the DOC. Miller
described N.L. as becoming “increasingly aggressive,” noting that he had been arrested
twice since being placed on probation. Tr. p. 11. Miller also described N.L.’s refusal to
participate in services, stating that “the goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate
[N.L.] and if we can’t get him to participate in services and complete those programs
we’re not providing any sort of rehabilitation.” Id. at 12. In the DOC, however, Miller
explained that N.L. would have no choice but to participate in services and would have
educational, vocational, behavioral, and substance-abuse treatment programs available to
him. Id. Educational programs were particularly important because N.L. was “very
3 behind in school” after being expelled and had special educational needs according to an
individualized educational plan. Id.
When N.L.’s counsel asked about alternative placements for N.L., Miller
explained that N.L. had behaved well while at Kinsey, a secure placement, and this
supported her belief that “[N.L.] needs to be somewhere where he is required to do
things.” Id. at 20. According to Miller, alternative placements such as residential care
and home detention would not meet this criteria. N.L.’s father and N.L. also testified,
and both expressed their opposition to a DOC placement, volunteering instead the option
of in-home detention.
After hearing the recommendation of Miller and testimony from N.L. and his
father, the trial court summarized the evidence relevant to its decision. As the court
explained, N.L. had admitted to theft, burglary, and possession of marijuana before the
events giving rise to the current proceedings. Further, N.L. did not have adequate support
in his home environment and was missing for more than four months, during which N.L.
did not participate in services. N.L.’s conduct was “aggressive, sometimes violent.” Id.
at 51. Regarding the likelihood that N.L. would again flee the court’s jurisdiction, the
court stated, “I don’t have any assurances that he’s going to stay.” Id. The trial also
noted that N.L. had not attended school for months. In summary, the court explained:
It’s very clear to everybody here that [N.L.] does better when he’s in a structured setting. I think it is in the child’s best interest that he remain in a structured setting. In that structured setting he could receive the counseling, schooling[,] and the structure that he so dearly needs.
Id. The court then ruled, “I am going to place [N.L.] at the Department of Correction
juvenile facility . . . .” Id.
4 N.L. now appeals his commitment to the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
N.L. argues that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DOC because it
is not the least restrictive placement. He argues that he should have been placed on in-
home detention or in a residential facility.
In determining whether the juvenile court properly placed N.L. in the DOC, we
note that the choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child
is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will be reversed only if
there has been an abuse of that discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). The juvenile court’s 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. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s action 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 can be drawn therefrom.
Id. Hence, the juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in dealing
with juveniles. Id.
Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile
court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before Feb 27 2012, 8:31 am any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MARK SMALL GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
N.L., ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 52A02-1110-JV-1051 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )
APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Daniel C. Banina, Judge Cause Nos. 52D02-1105-JD-16, 52D02-1010-JD-52 & 52D02-1012-JD-57
February 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge Case Summary
N.L. appeals his commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction.
Specifically, he contends that it is not the least restrictive and most appropriate placement
for him. In light of N.L.’s growing juvenile history, conduct while on probation, and
failure to participate in services offered to him, we conclude that the juvenile court did
not abuse its discretion in committing him to the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
In March 2011, the Miami County Juvenile Court adjudicated sixteen-year-old
N.L. a delinquent child and placed him on probation after he admitted to three offenses
that would be crimes if committed by an adult: burglary, theft, and possession of
marijuana. Appellant’s App. p. 14. The terms of N.L.’s probation required that N.L. not
commit another delinquent act or criminal offense, attend school and maintain good
grades, report to the probation office as ordered, and observe court-ordered curfew. N.L.
was also required to participate in home-based services and perform fifty hours of
community service.
Just two months later, on May 6, the State filed a petition to modify N.L.’s
probation based upon allegations of harassment and intimidation stemming from N.L’s
interaction with a male acquaintance. On May 9, the State filed a delinquency petition in
the new case alleging three offenses: two counts of intimidation, Class A misdemeanors
if committed by an adult, and one count of harassment, a Class B misdemeanor if
committed by an adult. Id. at 23.
2 An initial hearing on the State’s petitions was set for May 18, 2011. N.L. did not
appear at the hearing, and his whereabouts were unknown for more than four months.
Upon returning to his father’s home in September, N.L. was transported to the Kinsey
Youth Center in Kokomo. The State filed a second petition for modification of N.L.’s
probation on September 12, alleging violations of N.L.’s probation occurring while
N.L.’s whereabouts were unknown, including resisting law enforcement and failing to
attend school, report to the probation department, abide by curfew, participate in services,
and complete community service. Id. at 42. N.L. subsequently admitted to violating the
terms of his probation as alleged in the State’s May 6 and September 12 petitions to
modify his probation. N.L. also admitted to the allegations of delinquency in the State’s
petition filed on May 9.
A dispositional hearing was held in October 2011. At the hearing, N.L.’s
probation officer, Mandy Miller, recommended that N.L. be placed in the DOC. Miller
described N.L. as becoming “increasingly aggressive,” noting that he had been arrested
twice since being placed on probation. Tr. p. 11. Miller also described N.L.’s refusal to
participate in services, stating that “the goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate
[N.L.] and if we can’t get him to participate in services and complete those programs
we’re not providing any sort of rehabilitation.” Id. at 12. In the DOC, however, Miller
explained that N.L. would have no choice but to participate in services and would have
educational, vocational, behavioral, and substance-abuse treatment programs available to
him. Id. Educational programs were particularly important because N.L. was “very
3 behind in school” after being expelled and had special educational needs according to an
individualized educational plan. Id.
When N.L.’s counsel asked about alternative placements for N.L., Miller
explained that N.L. had behaved well while at Kinsey, a secure placement, and this
supported her belief that “[N.L.] needs to be somewhere where he is required to do
things.” Id. at 20. According to Miller, alternative placements such as residential care
and home detention would not meet this criteria. N.L.’s father and N.L. also testified,
and both expressed their opposition to a DOC placement, volunteering instead the option
of in-home detention.
After hearing the recommendation of Miller and testimony from N.L. and his
father, the trial court summarized the evidence relevant to its decision. As the court
explained, N.L. had admitted to theft, burglary, and possession of marijuana before the
events giving rise to the current proceedings. Further, N.L. did not have adequate support
in his home environment and was missing for more than four months, during which N.L.
did not participate in services. N.L.’s conduct was “aggressive, sometimes violent.” Id.
at 51. Regarding the likelihood that N.L. would again flee the court’s jurisdiction, the
court stated, “I don’t have any assurances that he’s going to stay.” Id. The trial also
noted that N.L. had not attended school for months. In summary, the court explained:
It’s very clear to everybody here that [N.L.] does better when he’s in a structured setting. I think it is in the child’s best interest that he remain in a structured setting. In that structured setting he could receive the counseling, schooling[,] and the structure that he so dearly needs.
Id. The court then ruled, “I am going to place [N.L.] at the Department of Correction
juvenile facility . . . .” Id.
4 N.L. now appeals his commitment to the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
N.L. argues that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DOC because it
is not the least restrictive placement. He argues that he should have been placed on in-
home detention or in a residential facility.
In determining whether the juvenile court properly placed N.L. in the DOC, we
note that the choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child
is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will be reversed only if
there has been an abuse of that discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). The juvenile court’s 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. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s action 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 can be drawn therefrom.
Id. Hence, the juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in dealing
with juveniles. Id.
Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile
court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:
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;
5 (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.
“Without question, the statute requires the juvenile court to select the least
restrictive placement in most situations; however, the statute contains language that
reveals that a more restrictive placement might be appropriate under certain
circumstances.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 28-29. That is, the statute requires placement in the
least restrictive setting only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best
interest of the child.” I.C. § 31-37-18-6. Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain
situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.
J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29.
This case presents one of those situations where the best interest of the child is
better served by a more restrictive placement. N.L. is swiftly accumulating a significant
juvenile record. Just two months after admitting to charges of theft, burglary, and
possession of marijuana, the State filed a delinquency petition based upon two counts of
intimidation and one count of harassment, as well as a petition to modify the terms of
N.L.’s probation. Shortly thereafter, N.L. disappeared and did not return for more than
four months. After his return, the State filed a second petition to modify N.L.’s probation
based upon his failure to comply with the terms of his probation, which included resisting
law enforcement. N.L. admitted to the allegations contained in the State’s delinquency
petition as well as those in the two petitions to modify his probation.
6 Miller, N.L.’s probation officer, testified that since being placed at a secure,
structured youth facility, N.L. had behaved well. Miller explained that N.L. would
benefit from a placement in the DOC, where such security and structure would continue.
Miller also explained that although N.L. repeatedly refused to participate in services, he
would be required to do so in the DOC, where educational, vocational, behavioral, and
substance-abuse treatment programs would be available to him. Though N.L. states that
in-home detention or placement in a residential facility would be preferable to him, the
evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that N.L. requires the structure and security
that the DOC can provide. Given N.L.’s juvenile history, his behavior while on
probation, including his disappearance for more than four months, and his refusal to
participate in services, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
committing N.L. to the DOC for housing in a correctional facility for children.
Affirmed.
ROBB, C.J., and NAJAM, J., concur.