Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 1 of 8

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Assistant Section Chief, Criminal 

Appeals

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D.F.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

August 10, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-JV-610

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Bob A. Witham, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C01-1706-JD-26

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 2 of 8

Statement of the Case

[1] D.F. appeals from the juvenile court’s order modifying a dispositional decree 

following his adjudication as a delinquent child for battery, as a Class A 

misdemeanor when committed by an adult. D.F. presents a single issue for our 

review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when awarded 

wardship of him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On June 9, 2017, officers with the New Castle Police Department (“NCPD”) 

responded to two calls regarding a juvenile who was breaking into cars. When 

Officer Jason Boring arrived at the scene of the second break-in, he arrested 

D.F., who was then sixteen years old. Officer Boring observed that D.F. 

appeared to be intoxicated, and D.F. told Officer Boring that he had recently 

taken two clonazepam pills. Officer Boring arrested D.F. but released him with 

instructions to meet with the juvenile probation department on June 12. D.F. 

met with the probation department and agreed to the terms of an informal 

adjustment.

[4] On June 15, D.F. was involved in an altercation with another individual. 

During the altercation, D.F. punched the man.1 Officers with the NCPD 

 

1

 D.F.’s father allegedly stabbed the same man whom D.F. punched. Officers also arrested D.F.’s father. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 3 of 8

arrived at the scene and arrested D.F. In response to the two different arrests, 

the State filed a delinquency petition against D.F. on June 19. In that petition, 

the State alleged that D.F. had committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor 

when committed by an adult, and two counts of unauthorized entry of a motor 

vehicle, both as Class B misdemeanors when committed by an adult. 

[5] The juvenile court held an initial hearing on the State’s petition on June 22. 

Pursuant to an agreement reached by D.F. and the State, D.F. admitted to 

battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when committed by an adult, and the 

juvenile court dismissed the two other charges. At that time, the juvenile court 

adjudicated D.F. to be a delinquent. The juvenile court placed D.F. on home 

detention with electronic monitoring and released him into the custody of his 

grandmother. The court also ordered D.F. to participate in a substance-abuse 

evaluation. 

[6] Soon after D.F. was released into his grandmother’s care, D.F.’s grandmother 

notified Henry County Community Corrections that sometime on the night of 

June 23 or early on June 24, D.F. cut off his ankle bracelet and ran away from 

home. On June 26, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. At that time, 

the State recommended that D.F. undergo a complete substance-abuse 

assessment at the DOC. D.F. agreed with the State’s recommendation. 

Accordingly, the court ordered D.F. to complete that assessment. 

[7] On August 21, D.F.’s probation officer filed a predispositional report. D.F. 

admitted that he had used alcohol, marijuana, and methamphetamine on a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 4 of 8

daily basis. He also admitted that he had used prescription pills, including 

Klonopin, benzodiazepine, and opiates, one or two times per month beginning 

at the age of fourteen. The probation officer recommended that D.F. be placed 

in a residential placement center. A psychological evaluation conducted by the 

DOC indicated that D.F. had issues with substance abuse and criminal 

behavior. The report further indicated that D.F. admitted that he had 

previously carried a handgun and that he is a member of a gang. The 

psychological report also recommended that D.F. be placed in a residential 

facility. On August 24, the juvenile court placed D.F. in a residential 

placement program at the Anderson Center. Within a few weeks of his 

placement there, D.F. unsuccessfully attempted to escape from the facility. 

However, the Anderson Center allowed D.F. to remain there. 

[8] On December 10, while on a home pass from the Anderson Center, D.F. took a 

Suboxone pill from a prescription bottle belonging to his father. D.F. ingested

part of the pill while on leave and took the other part of the pill with him back 

to the Anderson Center. At some point thereafter, the Anderson Center 

discovered that D.F. was writing letters to a female resident that contained 

“highly descriptive sexual content” and were “borderline predatory in nature.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 159. The letters also included notes that highlighted 

gang affiliation. The Anderson Center employees were concerned that they 

could not meet D.F.’s needs, and they had concerns for the safety of the other 

residents at the Anderson Center. D.F. did not handle the consequences of his 

actions well, and he asked to be removed from the program. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 5 of 8

[9] On February 8, 2018, the State filed a petition for emergency change of 

residence based on D.F.’s use of Suboxone while on leave, D.F.’s letters to the 

female resident, D.F.’s request to be removed, and the Anderson Center’s 

concerns for the safety of other individuals. On February 15, the juvenile court 

held a hearing on the State’s petition. During the hearing, D.F.’s probation 

officer testified that both she and D.F.’s therapist believed that the DOC 

“would be the most suitable facility for him” based on D.F.’s past behavior 

because the DOC has extensive juvenile programming and D.F. would be able 

to complete a program that is best suited to his needs. Tr. Vol. II at 52. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the court found that placement in the DOC was 

D.F.’s best chance for making the necessary changes to his behavior before he 

becomes an adult. Accordingly, the juvenile court modified D.F.’s placement 

and awarded wardship of D.F. to the DOC. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[10] D.F. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it modified its 

dispositional order and committed him to the DOC because there were “a 

number of less restrictive settings” available to D.F., including foster care and 

placement at a quasi-military training academy. 2 Appellant’s Br. at 18. It is 

well settled that:

 

2

 D.F. also briefly asserts that the “juvenile court did not attempt a less restrictive, more family like setting 

before placing D.F. in the D.O.C.” Id. at 15. But D.F. is incorrect. The juvenile court first placed D.F. on 

home detention with electronic monitoring and allowed him to live at home with his grandmother. When 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 6 of 8

The choice of a specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a 

delinquent child is within the sound discretion of the juvenile 

court, 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. We will not reverse a 

juvenile disposition absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. 

An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s 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.S. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 1081, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). 

[11] The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation rather than punishment. R.H. 

v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Accordingly, juvenile 

courts have a variety of placement options for juveniles with delinquency 

problems, none of which are considered sentences.” Id. Indiana Code Section

31-37-18-6(1)(A) provides that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community 

and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional 

decree that . . . is in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate 

setting available[.]”

[12] But, as this court has previously held:

Although less harsh options than commitment to an institution 

are available for the juvenile court to utilize, “there are times 

 

that failed, the court placed D.F. in a residential placement facility where he was allowed to visit his family at 

his home. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 7 of 8

when commitment to a suitable public institution is in the ‘best 

interest’ of the juvenile and of society.” S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 

937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied (quoting A.D. v. State, 

736 N.E.2d 1274, 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). Stated differently, 

the law requires only that the disposition selected be the least 

restrictive disposition that is “consistent with the safety of the 

community and the best interest of the child.” See Ind. Code § 

31-37-18-6.

D.S., 829 N.E.2d at 1085. 

[13] Here, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed 

D.F. in the DOC instead of with yet another less restrictive option. D.F. 

originally agreed to an informal adjustment after he had been arrested for 

breaking into two different vehicles. But only days after he agreed to that 

informal adjustment, D.F. committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when 

committed by an adult. As a result of the second arrest, the juvenile court 

adjudicated D.F. a delinquent child and placed him on home detention with 

electronic monitoring. But, again, within only one day of being placed with his 

grandmother, D.F. cut off his ankle bracelet and ran away. The juvenile court 

then placed D.F. in a residential facility, and D.F. unsuccessfully attempted to 

escape after only a few weeks. And later while on leave from the residential 

facility, D.F. took drugs, and he brought drugs back with him to the center. 

D.F. then began writing sexually explicit and “borderline predatory” letters,

which caused the Anderson Center to no longer believe that they could 

maintain the safety of the other residents. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 159. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-610 | August 10, 2018 Page 8 of 8

[14] The juvenile court gave D.F. multiple chances to change his behavior before it 

modified his placement to the DOC. But, despite those chances, D.F. 

continued to engage in illegal or inappropriate conduct. Based on D.F.’s 

recurring inappropriate conduct while in less restrictive settings and the

probation officer’s belief that placing D.F. in the DOC would give him the best 

opportunity for rehabilitation, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its 

discretion when it placed D.F. in the DOC. We affirm the juvenile court’s 

order. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.