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

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 14 2020, 8:34 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John M. Haecker Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Squiller & Hamilton, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Auburn, Indiana Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

C.M., August 14, 2020 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JV-607 v. Appeal from the DeKalb Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt Grimm, Appellee-Petitioner Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 17C01-1910-JD-44 17C01-2002-JD-7

Baker, Senior Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 6 [1] C.M. appeals the dispositional order entered by the juvenile court, arguing that

the juvenile court erred by placing C.M. in the Department of Correction

(DOC) because less restrictive placements were available. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Facts [2] In October 2019, C.M. was on probation following an informal adjustment for

striking his mother. While on probation, he destroyed some of his mother’s

personal property and harassed a student at school by encouraging the student

to commit suicide. As a result, on October 23, 2019, the State filed a

delinquency petition in Cause Number 17C01-1910-JD-044 (JD-44) alleging

that C.M. was delinquent for acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor

criminal mischief and Class B misdemeanor harassment had they been

committed by adults. In December 2019, the juvenile court found C.M. to be

delinquent and placed him at White’s, a residential treatment program in

Wabash. [3] On February 6, 2020, the State filed a petition to modify C.M.’s dispositional

decree. It alleged that during the three months C.M. had been at White’s, he

had, among other things, threatened to slit another student’s throat, hit a peer in

the face, engaged in a physical altercation with another student, thrown

furniture, threatened self-harm, barricaded himself in his room, threatened staff,

left his cottage without permission, thrown a snow-covered rock that hit a staff

member in the face, broken into and damaged a locked shed, and spat in the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 6

face of a law enforcement officer. White’s refused to permit C.M. to remain at

the facility because it could not guarantee the safety of C.M. or the other

students if he stayed there. [4] On February 11, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition in Cause Number

17C01-2002-JD-7 (JD-7), alleging that C.M. had committed acts that would

have been Level 6 felony battery by bodily waste, Class A misdemeanor battery,

Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor

criminal mischief had they been committed by an adult. C.M. admitted to

throwing the snow-covered rock at the White’s staff member, which was the

basis of the battery allegation, and the State dismissed the other allegations. [5] On March 3, 2020, the juvenile court held a combined dispositional hearing for

JD-44 and JD-7. C.M.’s probation officer testified at the hearing, explaining

that C.M. has a history of tormenting his mother and other family members.

She also testified that he was not ready to accept treatment, that he was a

danger to himself and the community, and that placement at the DOC was

appropriate because he needed a structured, secure environment. According to

the probation officer, C.M. has serious mental and emotional health problems,

including oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit disorder, and

intermittent explosive disorder. [6] At the time of the dispositional hearing, C.M.’s relationship with his mother

had improved, and he asked to be allowed to be returned home. His probation

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 6

officer was skeptical that C.M. would be compliant at home, and the trial court

agreed:

Everything I’ve seen from you in my courtroom has been defiance from day one. . . . [T]here is no track record of compliance. I have no belief that you would stay at home. I have no belief that you would comply with electronic monitoring. I have no belief that you would voluntarily participate in necessary services in your mother’s home. I don’t believe any of that.

Tr. Vol. II p. 43. In JD-44, the juvenile court entered a modified dispositional

order awarding wardship to the DOC. In JD-77, the juvenile court found that

C.M. had committed the equivalent of Class A misdemeanor battery and

awarded wardship to the DOC. C.M. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] C.M.’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by ordering that he

be committed to the DOC. [8] 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, to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the

community’s safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 6

[9] 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 . . . 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). [10] The case before us started with C.M. on probation after striking his mother. He

violated that probation by committing new offenses of criminal mischief and

harassment, which resulted in his placement at White’s. While at White’s,

C.M. amassed a lengthy and serious list of infractions in just three months. He

threatened harm to himself and others, caused property damage, broke

countless rules, spat on a law enforcement officer, and threw a snow-covered

rock at a staff member. As a result, White’s refused to allow C.M. to remain

there. [11] It is apparent, therefore, that the early attempts at rehabilitation through less

restrictive means have been unsuccessful. Moreover, there is evidence in the

record that placement of C.M. in a less restrictive setting (especially in the care

of his mother, whom he has physically and emotionally tormented for years)

would risk harm to the community and to C.M. and would carry a low

likelihood of C.M. attending and complying with the treatment he so clearly

needs. Under these circumstances, we find that the juvenile court did not err by

ordering that C.M. be placed in the DOC.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 5 of 6 [12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 6 of 6