T.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 06 2018, 5:51 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE R. Thomas Lowe Curtis T, Hill, Jr. Jeffersonville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
T.W., September 6, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-292 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Vicki L. Appellee-Plaintiff Carmichael, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 10C04-1609-JD-248
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-292 | September 6, 2018 Page 1 of 5 [1] T.W. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing two acts of Level 3
felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The juvenile court placed
T.W. on probation until age eighteen and ordered, among other things, that he
not have any unsupervised contact with persons under eighteen years of age.
On appeal, T.W. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
prohibiting him from having unsupervised contact with persons under eighteen
years of age.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] When T.W. was fourteen or fifteen years old, he forced A.T., who was ten or
eleven at the time, to perform fellatio on him. T.W. also forced anal
intercourse on A.T. On September 22, 2016, the State prepared a delinquency
petition alleging T.W. committed two acts of Level 3 felony child molesting if
committed by an adult. On September 27, 2016, the juvenile court ordered that
the petition be filed. The juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing on October
18, 2017. On November 2, 2017, the court issued its order finding both
allegations true and adjudicating T.W. a delinquent child.
[4] The court held a dispositional hearing on November 29, 2017, and January 3,
2018. At the November 29, 2017 hearing, T.W.’s probation officer asked that
T.W. be required to submit to a psychosexual evaluation so that he could make
a recommendation best suited to T.W.’s needs. The trial court ordered the
evaluation and continued the dispositional hearing to January 3, 2018. On that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-292 | September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 5 date, the State presented evidence that T.W. was not doing well in school and
that he had prior contacts with the juvenile justice system. T.W.’s probation
officer recommended intensive outpatient treatment and that he not have
unsupervised contact with persons under eighteen. T.W.’s mother testified that
she still did not believe that T.W. committed the acts in question and that T.W.
continued to deny that the acts occurred.
[5] In setting out its disposition, the juvenile court indicated that it was prepared to
place T.W. in residential treatment. The court, however, decided to follow the
recommendation of the State and T.W.’s probation officer and placed T.W. on
probation until his eighteenth birthday. The court also ordered T.W. to
complete a sexually maladaptive treatment program, remain on electronic in-
home monitoring for three months, and not have unsupervised contact with
persons under eighteen years of age. The court qualified the latter condition as
follows:
I am going to enter a No Unsupervised Contact Order, no unsupervised contact with children under the age eighteen. Obviously he’ll have contact at school, he may have contact at work but there are other adults present and so he will have supervision so there’s not a limitation on him engaging in those activities simply that it’s not to be unsupervised contact.
Transcript Vol. II at 33. T.W. appeals the juvenile court’s disposition.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-292 | September 6, 2018 Page 3 of 5 [6] A juvenile court is accorded “wide latitude” and “great flexibility” in its
dealings with juveniles. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
“[T]he choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent
child is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will only
be reversed if there has been an abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citing E.L. v.
State, 783 N.E.2d 360, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). 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 it. Id. The juvenile court’s
discretion in determining a disposition 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. (citing C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215,
216-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation
rather than punishment. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010).
[7] T.W. argues that prohibiting him from having unsupervised contact with any
children under the age of eighteen does not lend itself to rehabilitation, but
rather is punitive in that the condition “prohibits the development of healthy
relationships and peer interaction, and, thereby, impairs [his] treatment and
rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. T.W. also asserts that the condition is
overbroad in that the interest in community safety could be served by a less
restrictive condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with “young children.”
Id. Finally, T.W. argues that the condition is impracticable because he is a
student enrolled in high school where he encounters peers daily.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-292 | September 6, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [8] We begin with the fact that T.W. was adjudicated a delinquent for committing
two acts of Level 3 felony child molesting if committed by an adult. T.W.
forced his ten/eleven-year-old victim to perform oral sex on him and to submit
to anal sex. Given the nature of the offenses, the juvenile court’s order that
T.W. not have unsupervised contact with persons under eighteen years of age is
not overbroad or punitive. Rather, we find that it should aid in his
rehabilitation in that it will reduce T.W.’s access to children and prevent him
from being in situations that might tempt any repetition of his improper and
illegal behavior.
[9] With regard to T.W.’s argument that this condition is impractical and
unreasonable because he needs to go to school where he will interact with
persons under eighteen, the juvenile court made it clear that activities where
adults are present, such as at school or work, were not prohibited because the
presence of other adults in these settings provided sufficient “supervision.”
Transcript Vol. II at 33. Thus, routine activities occurring within a school or
work setting do not violate this provision. The court’s caveat to the no
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
T.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (T.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.