K.T. 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 Dec 14 2018, 10:36 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
Zachary J. Stock Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
K. T., December 14, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-1333
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Karen M. Love,
Appellee-Petitioner. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D03-1803-JD-52
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 1 of 9
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Respondent, K.T., appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order
placing him with the Department of Correction (DOC) following his admission
to acts which would have constituted resisting law enforcement, a Class A
misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3); and battery, a Class A
misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), 1 had they been committed by an adult.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] K.T. presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the juvenile
court abused its discretion when it placed him with the DOC.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[4] K.T., who was born in 2002, was sexually abused by a relative as a toddler and
by one of his biological mother’s sexual partners at age seven. K.T. was first
exposed to pornography beginning at age five. K.T. was also physically abused
by several of his biological mother’s sexual partners and had witnessed
domestic abuse. As a result of his childhood trauma, K.T. exhibited a
preoccupation with sexual matters from an early age. K.T. and his younger
1
This subsection, cited by the juvenile court in its dispositional order, pertains to Class B misdemeanor
battery. The parties do not contest that K.T. admitted to acts which would have constituted Class A
misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 2 of 9
brother, A.T., were found to be children in need of services (CHINS) and were
removed from their mother’s care in 2009. K.T. and A.T. were initially placed
with their great-grandmother, but in July of 2010, both were placed in a pre-
adoptive home, where the pre-adoptive couple’s biological, minor daughter,
H.T, also lived. K.T. and A.T. were eventually adopted into the home in 2011.
[5] K.T.’s behavior in his adoptive home was troubled. K.T. engaged in excessive
talk of a sexual nature, inappropriately sexually touched peers, and regularly
viewed pornography. K.T. subjected A.T. to anal sex on three separate
occasions. K.T. also subjected H.T. to anal sex on three occasions, and he
instructed A.T. to subject H.T. to anal sex. At times, K.T. masturbated to the
point of self-injury. K.T. also displayed aggressive behaviors such as pushing
A.T. down the stairs and having the family dog attack his siblings. K.T. stole
from his siblings and attempted to set the house on fire. K.T. made false
allegations of sexual abuse against his adoptive father and reported having
sexual fantasies about him.
[6] K.T. has been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and conduct
disorder, among other diagnoses. Beginning in 2009, K.T. began receiving
outpatient therapy. From 2012 through 2014, K.T. received outpatient
psychiatric, therapeutic, and wrap-around services. K.T. had an inpatient stay
at Riley Hospital in August of 2013 as a result of behaviors that indicated that
he was a danger to himself and others. K.T. threatened to commit suicide on at
least one occasion. K.T.’s adoptive parents reported that K.T. struggled to
regularly demonstrate any changes outside of the therapeutic environment. For
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 3 of 9
instance, even after receiving treatment for his sexually maladaptive behavior
directed toward H.T., K.T. continued to rub up against her, causing her to be in
fear of him.
[7] K.T. was placed with his biological mother for four months starting in
December of 2013. This placement resulted in an escalation of K.T.’s sexual
behaviors: K.T. attempted to kiss his mother and fondle her breasts, reported
having sexual fantasies about her, and attempted to observe his mother in the
shower. K.T. was hospitalized for several days and subsequently went to his
first residential placement at Oaklawn in March of 2014 to address his constant
sexual preoccupation and his fear that he would injure someone.
[8] While at Oaklawn, K.T. received treatment for his sexually maladaptive
behavior. K.T. had behavioral issues there and was discharged from Oaklawn
unsuccessfully. On January 15, 2015, K.T. was placed in residential treatment
at Resolute. K.T.’s treatment at Resolute was designed to address his sexual
behaviors. While at Resolute, K.T. flashed his peers and staff and was caught
in a sex act with a peer. K.T. did not successfully complete his treatment at
Resolute. At that time, K.T.’s adoptive parents wished to have him return to
their home, but they expressed grave concern about the safety of their other
children and the children in their neighborhood who might come into contact
with K.T. On July 29, 2016, K.T. went to his third residential treatment
facility, Gibault, where his treatment plan included services for his sexually
maladaptive behaviors. While at Gibault, K.T. was observed touching a peer’s
genitals and received at least fifteen reports for conduct including self-harm and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 4 of 9
being a danger to others. K.T. was discharged from Gibault in December 2017,
without having successfully completed his treatment. K.T.’s family installed
security cameras inside their home in anticipation of K.T.’s return.
[9] K.T. had been home for approximately three months, when on March 17, 2017,
he disabled the security cameras inside his home and entered H.T.’s room while
she was sleeping. K.T. pulled at the waistband of H.T.’s pants, causing her to
awaken and scream. K.T. fled from the home, and his parents alerted the
authorities. An officer searching for K.T. spotted him and ordered him to stop.
K.T. fled but was eventually stopped by the officer. K.T. was detained at the
Hamilton County Juvenile Detention Facility. On March 19, 2018, the State
filed its Petition, alleging that K.T. had committed acts that, if committed by an
adult, would have constituted resisting law enforcement and sexual battery. On
April 25, 2018, K.T. admitted that he had committed acts that would have
constituted resisting law enforcement and battery, as a lesser-included offense of
sexual battery, had they been committed by an adult.
[10] After the events of March 17, 2018, K.T.’s parents were no longer willing to
have him return to their home out of concern for their other children. Prior to
K.T.’s dispositional hearing, the Hendricks County Probation Department
(HCPD) contacted eleven in-state and two out-of-state residential treatment
facilities seeking a placement for K.T. None accepted him. The HCPD
recommended placement with the DOC due to K.T.’s failure to benefit from
community-based services. As a CHINS who was also alleged to be
delinquent, K.T. was considered a dual status youth. On April 10, 2018, K.T.’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 5 of 9
dual status assessment team prepared a dispositional report in which the nine-
member team, which included K.T.’s guardian ad litem, representatives from
DCS, his adoptive parents, and service providers, unanimously concluded that
K.T. should be placed with the DOC due to his previous failed placements.
[11] On April 25, 2018, and May 21, 2018, the juvenile court held dispositional
hearings. Ashley Starling (Starling) of the HCPD testified that, in her opinion,
it would be “very, very dangerous” to place K.T. in the community due to his
history and the potential that he could harm another child. (Transcript Vol. II,
p. 41-42). Starling had been advised by DCS that K.T. could not be placed in a
foster home or a group home until he successfully completed a sexually
maladaptive behavior treatment program. K.T. could not complete that type of
treatment in a foster home. Starling had verified that DOC provided such
treatment. Starling had located no other placement option for K.T. other than
the DOC. Courtney Crowe (Crowe) of DCS provided her professional opinion
that, because K.T. had failed three residential placements and had not
successfully completed treatment for his sexually maladaptive behaviors, no
foster care home would be willing to take him. On May 22, 2018, the juvenile
court entered its dispositional order in which it made the following relevant
findings:
22. Despite the treatment [K.T.] has received, he continues to be
a risk for sexually maladaptive behavior.
23. Extensive treatment has been given to [K.T.] without success.
[K.T.] needs to successfully complete [the DOC’s] sexually
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 6 of 9
maladaptive treatment program and then needs a significant
period of supervision by Probation to be sure he can be safely
placed in the community.
24. Unless [K.T.] receives the treatment he needs, he is at
significant risk to reoffend as a juvenile and as an adult.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 118). The juvenile court specifically found
Crowe’s testimony to be credible that K.T. could not be placed in a group home
or foster care until he successfully completed sexually maladaptive behavior
treatment. The juvenile court awarded wardship of K.T. to the DOC for an
indeterminate period and directed K.T. to successfully complete a sexually
maladaptive behavior treatment program as well as a psychological evaluation
to determine his other treatment needs.
[12] K.T. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[13] K.T. appeals from the trial court’s dispositional order placing him with the
DOC. “The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter
committed to the trial court’s discretion, subject to the statutory considerations
of the child’s welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh
disposition.” A.M. v. State, 109 N.E.3d 1034, 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). We
review a juvenile court’s dispositional order for an abuse of discretion, which
occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be drawn
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 7 of 9
therefrom. Id. In addition, when determining whether a juvenile court abused
its discretion, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id.[14] Here, K.T. had deeply-seated sexually maladaptive behavior resulting from his
own history of being abused. It was Starling’s opinion that K.T. was a danger
to the community. K.T. had received out-patient therapy, wraparound services,
and had been hospitalized for acute incidents. Prior to committing the instant
delinquent acts, K.T. had been placed in residential treatment for almost four
years at three different facilities for his sexually maladaptive behaviors but was
unsuccessful at completing treatment. By the time of his dispositional hearing,
no residential treatment facility would accept K.T. for further treatment, and
the DOC was the only place where he could access the treatment that the
HCPD, DCS, and K.T.’s dual status team all concluded that he needed. Given
this evidence, the juvenile court’s decision to place him with the DOC was not
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.[15] K.T. argues that the juvenile court should have treated him as a CHINS and
that DCS should have inquired about the possibility of foster care as an
alternate disposition. However, K.T.’s contentions ignore that the juvenile
court received the recommendation of the dual status team, which considered
what was in K.T.’s best interests as both a CHINS and a juvenile who had been
alleged to have committed a delinquent act. That team unanimously
recommended that K.T. be placed with the DOC. In addition, the evidence
before the juvenile court was that foster care was not an option for K.T. until he
successfully completed sexually maladaptive behavior treatment. In its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 8 of 9
dispositional order, the juvenile court specifically credited that evidence, which
we will not reweigh on appeal. A.M., 109 N.E.3d at 1037. Finding no abuse of
the juvenile court’s discretion, we affirm its dispositional order.
CONCLUSION
[16] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court acted within its
discretion when it placed K.T. with the DOC.
[17] Affirmed.
[18] Kirsch, J. and Robb, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-1333 | December 14, 2018 Page 9 of 9