R.P. 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 Aug 14 2019, 8:51 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
Michelle Laux Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Courtney L. Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
R.P., August 14, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-536
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
The Honorable Graham C. Polando,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause Nos.
71J01-1811-JD-401
71J01-1811-JD-407
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] R.P. was adjudicated a delinquent and placed in the Indiana Department of
Correction, Juvenile Division (“the DOC”). R.P. appeals, presenting the sole
issue of whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing him in the
DOC for his first delinquency adjudication. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2017, R.P. was removed from his home and adjudicated a Child in Need of
Services (“CHINS”) because he had been physically abused and neglected.
During the pendency of the CHINS proceedings, R.P. was placed in emergency
shelter care, relative placement, foster care, and the Youth Opportunity Center
(“YOC”). During R.P.’s placement at the YOC, he threatened staff, was
physically aggressive, and destroyed property. He also threatened to kill
himself. After ten months, YOC requested that R.P. be removed for his
personal safety and the safety of the staff and residents.
[3] The Indiana Department of Child Services (“the DCS”) contacted nine facilities
in an effort to find a secure residential placement for R.P. After none of those
facilities would accept R.P., the DCS recommended that he be returned to the
custody of his mother, S.B. (“Mother”). Shortly thereafter, Mother called
police to report that R.P. had pulled her hair and struck her.
[4] On November 29 and 30, 2018, the State filed delinquency petitions under three
cause numbers, alleging that R.P., then aged fourteen, had engaged in conduct
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 2 of 7
that would, if he were an adult, constitute battery, domestic battery, and
criminal mischief. Specifically, the State alleged that R.P. battered Mother and
a YOC worker and broke windshields of four YOC vehicles.
[5] On December 19, 2018, R.P. admitted the truth of the allegations of domestic
battery and criminal mischief; the battery allegation was dismissed. R.P. was
released to the custody of Mother under Trust House Arrest program
conditions.
[6] On February 13, 2018, R.P. appeared at a dispositional hearing. Due to the
problems in prior placements and the unavailability of another secure juvenile
placement facility, the probation department recommended that R.P. be placed
in the DOC. The juvenile court ordered R.P.’s placement in the DOC. He
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] The juvenile court has discretion to choose the specific disposition of a juvenile
adjudicated a delinquent “subject to the statutory considerations 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 3 of 7
deductions to be drawn therefrom.” D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 404-05 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2006).
[8] 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:
(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.
[9] 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,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 4 of 7
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.”
I.C. § 31-37-18-6. In other words, “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.
[10] R.P. has a long history of unsuccessful placements. In 2017, after he was
adjudicated a CHINS, R.P. was placed with his paternal grandparents until
they requested his removal. R.P. was placed with a foster family but the foster
parents alleged that R.P. destroyed and stole property and was verbally
aggressive. Both the foster parents and R.P. asked that the foster care
placement be ended. R.P. was placed in emergency shelter care at Bashor
Children’s Home but the placement was marred by reported incidents of
property destruction, verbal defiance, physical aggression, threats to peers, a
run-away attempt, and a physical assault upon staff. R.P. was temporarily
returned to Mother and then placed in the YOC.
[11] At the YOC, R.P. was subjected to restraint on multiple occasions. YOC
reports disclosed the basis for those restraints:
1/17/18 R.P. threatened to kill himself.
1/28/18 R.P. broke a telephone, threw slippers, and threatened
staff members.
1/29/18 R.P. threatened another resident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 5 of 7
2/10/18 R.P. (with a closed fist) hit staff attempting to utilize
suicide precaution blankets.
2/17/18 R.P. threatened to hit staff, kicked his bedroom door,
and attempted to bite a staff member.
5/11/18 R.P. swallowed dice in a suicide attempt.
5/31/18 After another resident killed a frog, R.P. participated in
dissecting, skinning, and playing with it.
6/2/18 R.P. pulled a fire alarm and banged his head on the
floor.
7/8/18 R.P. kicked and attempted to punch staff members.
9/23/18 R.P. (with a closed fist) struck a staff member in the
mouth.
9/24/18 R.P. attempted to bite staff members.
10/1/18 R.P. threatened to kill staff members and pushed them
several times.
10/4/18 R.P. hit a staff member in the head, punched a staff
member in the chest, and spit at staff.
(App. Vol. IV, pg. 71.)
[12] R.P. contends that his significant adjustment difficulties arose from his history
of abuse and neglect and that a first offense does not justify placement in the
DOC. If R.P. could receive the intensive services he needs in a less restrictive
environment, we would be inclined to agree. However, nine youth facilities
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 6 of 7
declined to accept R.P. The placement 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.” I.C. § 31-37-18-6. Ultimately,
the juvenile court was severely limited in the options for R.P. We cannot say
that the juvenile court abused its discretion.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 7 of 7