J.F. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Dec 10 2019, 10:29 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael G. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief,
Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.F., December 10, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1209
v.
Appeal from the Sullivan
Circuit Court
State of Indiana,
The Hon. Robert E. Hunley II,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
77C01-1812-JD-49
77C01-1806-JD-32
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] In July of 2018, then-fourteen-year-old J.F. was adjudicated a juvenile
delinquent for committing what would be criminal mischief if committed by an
adult. The juvenile court ordered that J.F. be placed in the Paddock View
Residential Home in Grant County. While at Paddock View, J.F. punched
another resident in the face, escaped while on a medical appointment, and was
apprehended in possession of stolen property. J.F. admitted that he had
committed what would be battery and criminal conversion if committed by an
adult, and the juvenile court ordered him to be placed at Southwest Indiana
Regional Youth Village (“SIRYV”) in Knox County, eventually also ordering
that he be placed in the male substance-abuse program. In April of 2019, the
State petitioned to have J.F. placed in the Department of Correction (“DOC”),
citing his removal from the male substance-abuse program. On April 16, 2019,
the juvenile court ordered J.F. committed to DOC for an indeterminate amount
of time. J.F. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering a
DOC placement. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 12, 2018, then-fourteen-year-old J.F. was already on probation for
having committed what would be, if committed by an adult, Level 5 felony
intimidation and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief when he punched a
hole in the wall of his mother’s house in Sullivan County. Based on this
incident, the State alleged in cause number 77C01-1806-JD-32 (“Cause No.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 7
32”) that J.F. was a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be criminal
mischief if committed by an adult. (App. Vol. II 60). On July 18, 2018, J.F.
admitted to the allegation in Cause No. 32 (and leaving home without
permission in another cause number), and the juvenile court ordered him
committed to DOC for a fourteen-day diagnostic evaluation. (Appellant’s App.
Vol. II pp. 60–61). J.F.’s evaluation identified a number of concerns with his
mental state, including ADHD, unspecified anxiety disorder, and multiple
substance-abuse disorders. (App. Vol. II 88).
[3] On August 21, 2018, the juvenile court ordered J.F. to be placed in Paddock
View. (App. Vol. II 153). On October 23, 2018, J.F. struck another Paddock
View resident in the face. (App. Vol. II 173). On October 29, 2018, while at a
medical appointment, J.F. escaped the custody of Paddock View staff. (App.
Vol. II 176). When J.F. was found later that day, he was wearing a hat and
gloves and riding a bicycle, all of which were stolen. (App. Vol. II 176-77). On
October 31, 2018, the State petitioned to modify J.F.’s probation in Grant
County, and he admitted to allegations of battery and criminal conversion on
December 3, 2018, in cause number 77C01-1812-JD-49 (“Cause No. 49”).
(App. Vol. III 1).
[4] On December 4, 2018, the Sullivan Circuit Court reinstated jurisdiction over
J.F. (Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 5). On December 14, 2018, the juvenile court
ordered J.F. to be placed at SIRYV in Knox County pending disposition of
Cause No. 49. (App. Vol. II 184). On February 7, 2019, the juvenile court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 7
modified J.F.’s probation to require that he be enrolled in the SIRYV male
substance-abuse program. (Tr. Vol. II 9-10).
[5] On April 5, 2019, J.F.’s probation officer petitioned to modify J.F.’s placement
to DOC, citing his removal from the male substance-abuse program. (App.
Vol. III 27). At a hearing on April 8, 2019, J.F.’s probation officer testified that
she had received nine incident and restraint reports from the male substance-
abuse program and that J.F. had refused to participate in the program, was
“aggressive and assaultive” toward other participants and staff, and had
instructed another resident on the proper way to commit suicide by cutting his
wrists. April 8, 2019, Tr. Vol. II p. 6. On April 16, 2019, J.F. admitted to
violating the terms of his probation, and the juvenile court ordered him
committed to DOC for an indeterminate amount of time. (Tr. Vol. IV 6, 10).
In so doing, the juvenile court noted that “we have tried almost every option
that we have available to us, uh, for whatever reason it just does not seem to be
working.” April 16, 2019, Tr. Vol. II p. 10.
Discussion and Decision
[6] J.F. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him
committed to DOC for an indeterminate time. 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 7
abuse of that discretion.” 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. 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.[7] 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). “Accordingly, juvenile
courts have a variety of placement options for juveniles with delinquency
problems, none of which are considered sentences.” Id. Indiana Code section
31-37-18-6(1)(A) provides that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community
and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional
decree that is in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate
setting available.” “[T]he statute contains language that reveals that a more
restrictive placement might be appropriate under certain circumstances.” J.S.,
881 N.E.2d at 29. The law requires only that the disposition selected be the
least restrictive disposition that is “consistent with the safety of the community
and the best interest of the child.” D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005).
[8] Considering J.F.’s history of delinquency and the number of less-restrictive
placements that have failed to rehabilitate him, we conclude that the juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion in placing J.F. at DOC. J.F. is a fifteen-year-
old boy who has been in the juvenile justice system since 2016. (App. Vol. III
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 5 of 7
24). The State first alleged J.F. (born in December of 2003) to be a juvenile
delinquent in April of 2016, and, in addition to the battery and criminal
conversion adjudications in this case, J.F. has prior adjudications for what
would be Level 5 felony intimidation and two counts of Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief if committed by an adult and leaving home without
permission. (Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 29–30). J.F. has been on probation
in Vigo, Clay, and Sullivan Counties, and, as of the disposition date in this
case, J.F. had a battery allegation pending in Vigo County. (Appellant’s App.
Vol. III p. 29).
[9] Numerous efforts have been made to rehabilitate J.F. in a less-restrictive
manner than placement at DOC, to no avail. Over the years, the services
offered to J.F. have included supervision through Sullivan County Community
Corrections; supervised probation through Sullivan and Clay Counties;
counseling through HARSHA, St. Vincent Behavioral, and Gibault; Vigo
County Group Home; Bloomington Meadows; Valle Vista; in-home services
with Mike McKamey of Lifeline; Hamilton Center; Dr. Gonzalez; DOC
diagnostic evaluation; Paddock View Residential Center; Grant County
Juvenile Center; detention at SIRYV; and the SIRYV male substance-abuse
program. (App. Vol. III 18-19). None of these less-restrictive services or
placements seem to have helped J.F., as he was most recently dismissed from
the SIRYV male substance-abuse program following multiple physical
altercations with staff and peers, including one incident where he broke a
window and cut another resident’s arm. (Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 35).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 6 of 7
SIRYV’s clinical director noted J.F.’s “refusal to participate and engage even at
the most basic levels, and his aggressive and assaultive behaviors towards youth
and staff.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 35. Now that many less-restrictive
placements have failed to help J.F. with his mental problems, we cannot say
that the juvenile court abused its discretion in trying DOC placement.
[10] J.F. argues that “the proximity and ability of his mother to participate was not
taken into consideration when the juvenile court committed him to IDOC” and
that the juvenile court abused its discretion in not continuing his placement at
SIRYV. Appellant’s Br. p. 11. First, the juvenile court is only required to
consider the least restrictive placement if that placement aligns with community
safety needs and the child’s best interests. J.B. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 714, 717
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In any event, J.F.’s last placement at SIRYV had not
been successful, as he had been dismissed from the male substance-abuse
program. There is nothing in the record to indicate a second chance at SIRYV
would turn out differently. The juvenile court had wide discretion to place J.F.
according to his best interests, and given his history, placement at DOC for an
indeterminate period did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
[11] The judgement of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1209 | December 10, 2019 Page 7 of 7