A.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 15 2020, 9:14 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Katherine N. Worman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Courtney L. Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.M., July 15, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-JV-442
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Brett J. Niemeier,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Renee A.
Ferguson, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
82D04-2001-JD-11
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 1 of 9
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, A.M., appeals the juvenile court’s decision to commit her
to the Department of Correction (DOC), following her admission to domestic
battery, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] A.M. presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the juvenile
court abused its discretion when it committed A.M. to the DOC.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On January 3, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that A.M.
had committed what would be Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, a Class
A misdemeanor intimidation, and a Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if
committed by an adult. On January 15, 2020, during a hearing, A.M. admitted
that when her mother attempted to take her cellphone away, she “went to grab
it from her” and caught her mother’s hair in the process. (Transcript Vol. II, p.
11). Based on this admission, the juvenile court adjudicated A.M. to be
delinquent for having committed what would be a Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery if committed by an adult. The State agreed to dismiss the
other Counts. During this proceeding and following her admission, A.M. was
advised not to speak out of turn, to which she replied, “I don’t care what you
say, honestly. If I don’t listen to my Mom, what makes you think I’m gonna
listen to you.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 13). The juvenile court cautioned A.M. that she
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 2 of 9
would be removed from the hearing if she refused to follow directions, to which
A.M. responded, “well let’s go then.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 13). A.M. was
subsequently removed from the proceeding.
[5] In preparation for the dispositional hearing scheduled for January 29, 2020, a
predispositional report was prepared by the probation department. A.M.’s
mother reported that she has a strained relationship with her daughter and
indicated that A.M. is physically and verbally aggressive toward her younger
brother. A.M.’s behavior becomes worse when mother attempts to impose
“consequences.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 51). She advised that A.M.
needed help, but would “only get it if she’s forced” and admitted that A.M. was
“out of her control.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 44). Mother warned that she
believed A.M. was prostituting herself or engaged in sex trafficking because she
had found a profile for A.M. on a website that appeared to offer
“companionship and sexual favors.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 52). Mother
located more than twenty videos on A.M.’s cellphone in which A.M. was
engaged “in sex acts with different men in every video” and nude photographs
of A.M. in which she was engaged in “lewd and sexual acts.” (Appellant’s
App. Vol. II, p. 52).
[6] The probation department also compiled a list of A.M.’s juvenile delinquent
history, which was comprised mainly of battery adjudications and leaving home
without permission. Including the instant offense, A.M. has received twenty
referrals to juvenile court. Of these twenty referrals, ten occurred during 2019,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 3 of 9
which resulted in two juvenile adjudications. A.M. had been released from the
Youth Care Center approximately a month prior to the instant charge.
[7] A.M. has been diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder in 2015, and, at a
later time, with Conduct Disorder and Impulse Control and Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. Based on these diagnoses and “due to her prior failed
placements and lack of desire to change or improve,” A.M. was placed in the
Indiana Girls School. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 53). To treat her mental
health issues, A.M. received inpatient services from Child’s Place, Resource,
Harsha Behavioral Center, and Youth Villages. During these placements, A.M.
received individual therapy, group therapy, and family therapy. She was placed
on psychiatric medication to treat her symptoms. However, when she
committed the instant domestic battery, A.M. had not “engaged in any
therapeutic services and [was] not currently on any medication.” (Appellant’s
App. Vol. II, p. 53).
[8] On January 29, 2020, following argument by the parties, the juvenile court
ordered A.M. committed to the DOC. The juvenile court noted that A.M. had
received “prior DCS services, prior probation, secure detention at the Youth
Care Center, DOC commitments, prior acute hospitalization at Deaconess
Cross Pointe, inpatient services from Child’s Place, inpatient services at
Resource, inpatient services from Harsha Behavioral, and inpatient services
from Youth Villages in Memphis, Tennessee.” (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 19-20). Despite
these services, the juvenile court took note of A.M.’s admission that she was
unable to function in her home. The court found that A.M. “engage[d] in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 4 of 9
behavior that is dangerous to her” and “may have been . . . a victim of human
trafficking.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 20). Accordingly, the juvenile court concluded that
A.M. presented a “significant danger to herself” and the only remaining option
before the juvenile court was commitment at the DOC. (Tr. Vol. II, p. 20).
[9] A.M. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[10] A.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed
her to the DOC as it was not the least restrictive placement option available.
The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to
the sound discretion of the juvenile court, subject to the welfare of the child, the
safety of the community, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.
E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). On review, we may
overturn the juvenile court’s disposition order if we find that the court abused
its discretion, which occurs if its actions are clearly against the logic and effect
of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom. Id.
[11] As an initial matter, we observe that the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly
different from the criminal justice system. Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408
(Ind. 1987). Specifically, the goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation so that
the youth will not become a criminal as an adult. Id. Accordingly, juvenile
courts have a variety of placement choices for juveniles who have delinquency
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 5 of 9
problems, none of which are considered sentences. Id. 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.
[12] A.M. directs our attention to D.P. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 767, 771 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003), in which this court determined that the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it awarded guardianship of D.P. to the DOC. The D.P. court
based its decision to reverse the juvenile court on two factors: D.P.’s special
circumstances and Indiana’s policy favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. at
769-70. As for D.P.’s special circumstances, the court noted that D.P.’s I.Q.
was only sixty-five and that he had been held back in his third and fourth grade
school years. Id. at 770. Similarly, although D.P. was beginning the ninth
grade, he performed at either a third- or fifth-grade level. Id. Additionally,
D.P. was being medicated for ADHD, which is characterized by unusually
impulsive behavior. Id. As for Indiana’s policy favoring the least harsh
disposition, the D.P. court acknowledged that placement with the DOC may
still be appropriate even if less restrictive alternatives are available. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 6 of 9
Nevertheless, the D.P. court concluded that those were not the circumstances
with which it was presented because D.P. was not unresponsive to less
restrictive alternatives, inasmuch as his only other contact with the juvenile
system was his successful completion of probation following a battery
adjudication. Id. at 770-71. Accordingly, the court held that the juvenile court
should have suspended D.P.’s confinement with the DOC. Id. at 771.
[13] Here, neither A.M.’s interests nor those of her community are best served by a
placement outside of the DOC. Unlike D.P., A.M.’s history indicates that her
many placements, both in and out of the DOC, have failed to reform her. A.M.
has had the benefit of DCS services, probation services, secure detention
services at Youth Care Center, DOC commitments, acute hospitalizations at
Deaconess Cross Pointe, and several inpatient services. Despite all these efforts
to reform and rehabilitate A.M.’s behavior, she continued to engage in a pattern
of disorderly and disruptive actions. The instant cause constituted A.M.’s 20th
referral to the juvenile probation department and A.M.’s behavior before and
during her dispositional hearing made it abundantly clear that A.M. had no
intention of complying with even the most simple request. A.M. had only been
in the community thirty days before she committed what would be a Class A
misdemeanor domestic battery against her mother, who advised the juvenile
court that A.M. was “out of her control.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 44).
[14] A.M. argues that the juvenile court failed to consider her “special
circumstances” and that, despite a recommendation for “stable placement” she
has not received a “stable placement” or “supportive family therapy.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 7 of 9
(Appellant’s Br. p. 9). However, the record reflects that A.M.’s own behavior
issues made stable placement with her family impossible. A.M.’s mother
advised that she and A.M. “did not get along” and have a strained relationship
due to A.M.’s history of aggression towards her mother and younger sibling.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 51). A.M.’s history of documented mental health
issues indicates that she has either not responded to attempts for treatment or
actively rebelled against them. In the past, the juvenile court unsuccessfully
attempted to address A.M.’s mental health issues by placing her in inpatient
services. During these placements, A.M. had access to individual therapy,
group therapy, and family therapy. Yet, A.M. did not engage in any of these
therapeutic services. Through time, A.M.’s behavior has only worsened and
had now escalated to the point where she is engaged in prostitution or sex
trafficking.
[15] Noting the many failures of less-restrictive placements to cause A.M. to reform
herself, the juvenile court ordered A.M. committed to the DOC. We see little
in the record to suggest that a less-restrictive placement will be successful this
time. Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile court’s decision to order A.M.
committed to the DOC was not an abuse of its broad statutory discretion. The
evidence before us supports a conclusion that A.M. is more likely to benefit
most from a highly restrictive placement in the DOC, as it is the only placement
that both ensures A.M. has access to treatment while preventing her from
committing new delinquent acts.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 8 of 9
CONCLUSION
[16] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion when it committed A.M. to the DOC.
[17] Affirmed.
[18] Mathias, J. and Tavitas, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-442 | July 15, 2020 Page 9 of 9