Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-536 | August 14, 2019 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michelle Laux

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney L. Staton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

R.P.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

August 14, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-536

Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate 

Court

The Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, 

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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.