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

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 30 2020, 8:46 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Linda L. Harris Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney at Law, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Kentland, Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.R., September 30, 2020 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-JV-932 v. Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeryl F. Leach, Appellee-Petitioner. Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 37C01-1912-JD-191

Mathias, Judge. [1] A.R. appeals the Jasper Circuit Court’s order adjudicating him a juvenile

delinquent and committing him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”) until

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 1 of 6

he reaches the age of twenty-one. A.R. argues that the juvenile court abused its

discretion when it committed him to the Department of Correction. [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] A.R. has a significant history with our State’s juvenile justice system. His first

referral to the juvenile justice system occurred in July 2015 when he was eleven

years old. Approximately one year later, A.R. was adjudicated a delinquent for

disorderly conduct. He was placed in a residential treatment facility. While at

the facility he broke numerous rules, physically assaulted staff members, and

attempted to escape several times. As a result, A.R. was expelled from the

program in September 2016. A.R. was committed to the Pendleton Juvenile

Correctional Facility, and he was released approximately six months later in

March 2017. [4] When he was released from the DOC, A.R. was placed in foster care. A.R. ran

away from his foster home, and thereafter, he was placed in another residential

treatment center. A.R. also ran away from the treatment center. [5] In August 2017, A.R. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing

criminal mischief. A.R. was placed on probation, but four months later, he was

adjudicated a delinquent for committing an act which would constitute Level 5

felony burglary if committed by an adult. A.R. was committed to the

Logansport Juvenile Correctional Facility. After his twenty-two-month

commitment, he was placed in Campagna Academy in Lake County, Indiana. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[6] On October 23, 2019, fifteen-year-old A.R. ran away from Campagna and stole

a vehicle. On November 25, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition in Lake

Superior Court alleging that A.R. had committed acts that if committed by an

adult would constitute Level 6 felony auto theft, Class A misdemeanor theft,

Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, and Class C

misdemeanor operating a vehicle without a license. A.R. admitted that he had

committed unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. The case was transferred to

A.R.’s county of residence, Jasper County, for disposition. [7] The Jasper Circuit Court held a dispositional hearing on February 18, 2020.

The State recounted A.R.’s history of delinquency and unsuccessful placements

in residential facilities and the DOC and argued that A.R. should be committed

to the DOC for his latest delinquency adjudication. A.R. focused on his

improved behavior and accomplishments in the weeks leading up to the

dispositional hearing to argue that the least restrictive placement was

appropriate. The juvenile court noted that A.R. had several opportunities to

correct his behavior in the past but failed to do so. Therefore, the court

committed A.R. to the DOC until the age of twenty-one. A.R. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [8] A.R. argues that his commitment to the DOC “was not consistent with the best

interests of the child, the safety of the community, nor the policy of favoring the

least-harsh disposition.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. The choice of the specific

disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child is a matter within the

discretion of the juvenile court. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 3 of 6

2008). Accordingly, we will only reverse where the juvenile court has abused

that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s

action is 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. [9] A juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings

with juveniles. Id. However, a juvenile court’s discretion is subject to the

following statutory considerations:

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.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [10] A.R. argues that it was in his best interest to remain at Campagna Academy in

the secure residential wing. He notes his active participation in treatment at the

Academy in the weeks leading up to the dispositional hearing and the

psychologist’s evaluation recommending A.R.’s placement in a residential

facility so that he could benefit from therapeutic services available in that

placement. The therapist who had two sessions with A.R. prior to the

dispositional hearing praised A.R.’s participation in therapy and programming. [11] The juvenile court determined that commitment to the DOC was appropriate

due to A.R.’s continued delinquent behavior and his need for a well-structured,

highly-restrictive environment. Appellant’s App. Vol. 4, p. 162. The juvenile

court noted that A.R.’s previous placements in residential facilities were not

successful. Tr. p. 22. [12] A.R. has run away from residential facilities multiple times and committed his

most recent delinquent act after running away from Campagna. A.R.’s most

recent delinquency adjudication is his fourth in less than four years. During the

last four years, A.R. has received services while on probation and during his

placements in residential treatment facilities but has not demonstrated that he

has benefited from those services. The State’s accurately observes that A.R.’s

“history shows that even secure residential treatment facilities have not been

secure enough to prevent him from escaping, and when he escapes [A.R.]

engages in conduct that harms himself and the safety of the community.”

Appellee’s Br. at 11.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 5 of 6

Conclusion [13] By his continued delinquent conduct, A.R. has shown that probation and

placement in residential facilities have not successfully rehabilitated him. We

therefore conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion when it

determined that commitment to the DOC was the most appropriate placement

for A.R. The DOC will provide A.R. with services in the more restrictive and

structured setting that A.R. requires. As the juvenile court noted, and as we

reemphasize, A.R.’s continued active participation in services may result in

placement in a residential facility if the DOC determines that A.R.’s improved

behavior warrants the placement. [14] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s dispositional order placing

A.R. in the DOC.

Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-932 | September 30, 2020 Page 6 of 6