I.C. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 10 2019, 9:00 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
Karyn Price Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lake County Juvenile Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana
Tiffany A. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
I.C., December 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1468
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas P.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
The Honorable Jeffrey Miller,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
45D06-1708-JD-485
45D06-1708-JD-503
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] I.C. was adjudicated a delinquent and, following a series of less-restrictive
placements, was placed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”).
I.C. appeals, presenting the sole issue of whether the juvenile court abused its
discretion by placing him in the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 24, 2017, then fifteen-year-old I.C. was arrested. The State alleged
that I.C. had committed acts that would be Possession of Marijuana, as a Class
B misdemeanor, and Intimidation, as a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by
an adult. I.C. was released to the custody of his mother.
[3] Five days later, I.C. was again arrested. The State alleged that I.C. had
committed acts that would be possession of a knife on school property, a Class
B misdemeanor, two counts of disorderly conduct, Class B misdemeanors, and
Intimidation, as a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. I.C.’s
mother refused to have I.C. released into her custody, and the juvenile court
ordered that I.C. be retained at the Lake County Juvenile Detention Center
(“the Detention Center”).
[4] On October 24, 2017, I.C. admitted to possession of marijuana and disorderly
conduct; the remaining allegations were dismissed. On October 31, 2017, the
juvenile court ordered that I.C. be placed on probation and housed at Rites of
Passage-DePaul Academy. On February 6, 2018, I.C. was removed from the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 7
academy and placed in the Detention Center. On February 22, 2018, I.C. was
placed in George Junior Republic, a residential facility located in Pennsylvania.
On March 29, 2019, juvenile probation filed a petition for modification,
requesting that I.C. be placed in the DOC. On May 23, 2019, the juvenile court
granted the petition for modification. I.C. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] The juvenile court has discretion to choose the specific disposition of a juvenile
adjudicated a delinquent “subject to the statutory consideration of the welfare
of the child, the community’s safety, and the Indiana Code’s policy of favoring
the least harsh disposition.” C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1202 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2003). We will not reverse a juvenile court’s disposition unless the
juvenile court abuses its discretion. Id. The juvenile court abuses its discretion
if its action is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom.” D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 404-05 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2006).
[6] Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 provides:
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:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 7
(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.
[7] We have previously noted that this section requires that the juvenile court select
the least restrictive placement in most situations. D.B., 842 N.E.2d at 405.
“However, the statute contains language which reveals that under certain
circumstances a more restrictive placement might be appropriate.” K.A. v. State,
775 N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Indeed, the statute
requires placement in the least restrictive setting only if such placement is
“consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.”
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. As such, “the statute recognizes that in certain
situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive
placement.” K.A., 775 N.E.2d at 387.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 7
[8] I.C. has a history of unsuccessful placements. Within days of the filing of the
initial delinquency petition and I.C.’s return to his mother’s custody, he was
arrested for harassing and threatening passengers on a school bus. I.C. called
the responding officer “a n---a and a bitch.” (App. Vol. II, pg. 31.) When I.C.
was taken into custody, he was searched and found to be in possession of a
knife. I.C.’s mother declined to resume custody of I.C., requesting a boot camp
placement. I.C. was instead placed in the Detention Center, where he became
involved in physical altercations with other residents.
[9] At the Detention Center, I.C. submitted to a psychological evaluation; it was
recommended that he be placed in a residential facility for juveniles. I.C.
entered the Right of Passage-DePaul Academy in November of 2017. On
January 22, 2018, juvenile probation filed a petition for modification. The
academy had requested I.C.’s removal for conduct including: threatening staff
and peers; cursing at staff; throwing gang signs; assaulting a peer; attempting to
assault a staff member; and lack of cooperation with programming.
[10] The petition for modification of placement was granted and I.C. was
transported to George Junior in Pennsylvania. On March 15, 2018, I.C. was
admitted to the Special Needs Unit at George Junior. Beginning the next day,
the staff at George Junior reported that I.C. exhibited behavioral issues. These
included displaying anger, aggression, and disrespect toward peers and staff, as
well as refusal to follow instructions, complete homework, or cooperate with
tests. I.C. was transferred within George Junior to the Intensive Supervision
Unit, where he remained for approximately three months. I.C. progressed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 5 of 7
sufficiently that he was moved back to the Special Needs Unit and he was
eventually granted home passes. However, this privilege was forfeited when
I.C. exhibited further behavioral problems. He was temporarily placed in the
Crisis Intervention Unit.
[11] On January 11, 2019, juvenile probation recommended that I.C. be placed in an
Open Campus Program at George Junior. I.C. participated in this less
restrictive program for approximately one month. However, I.C.’s conduct in
the school environment and cottage environment caused him to be returned to
the Special Needs Unit. Juvenile probation staff met with I.C. to advise him
that a recommendation for placement in the DOC was imminent. Probation
staff and George Junior personnel agreed that I.C. could be given an
opportunity to “turn things around.” (App. Vol. II, pg. 242.)
[12] On April 3, 2019, the George Junior Campus Director issued an e-mail to
juvenile probation indicating that I.C. had become “impossible to manage” due
to oppositional behaviors and disrespect. Id. Allegedly, he threatened both
staff and peers in an effort to secure placement in the Crisis Intervention Unit.
At the hearing conducted on April 30, 2019, evidence was adduced that George
Junior was unwilling to accept I.C. back into their program and they had no
services to offer that had not previously been tried. Approximately one week
before I.C. was placed in the DOC, juvenile probation filed a report indicating
that other juvenile facilities were also unwilling to accept I.C.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[13] I.C. argues that less restrictive placements were available. But there does not
appear to be a less restrictive placement that is able to serve I.C.’s needs.
Ultimately, the juvenile court was severely limited in the options for I.C. given
his unsuccessful placement history. We cannot say that the juvenile court
abused its discretion.
[14] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1468 | December 10, 2019 Page 7 of 7