Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 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

Renee M. Ortega

Lake County Juvenile 

Public Defender’s Office

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

B.C.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

November 4, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-JV-1019

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Robert G. Vann, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

45D06-2003-JD-132

Mathias, Judge.

[1] B.C. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the Indiana 

Department of Correction (“DOC”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 8

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Over a three-month period in 2019, then sixteen-year-old B.C. received three 

delinquency referrals. Those referrals ultimately resulted in two adjudications, 

one for resisting law enforcement, and the other for dangerous possession of a 

firearm. As a result of the second adjudication, B.C. was placed on intensive 

probation level 2, which is “the absolute highest form of supervision” offered 

outside of secure detention. Tr. p. 8. While on intensive probation, B.C.—in his 

mother’s home—received weekly services, including substance abuse 

counseling, drug testing, individual therapy, tutoring, and mentoring. Though 

B.C. was compliant, he showed little improvement. See id. at 9.

[4] Then, on February 12, 2020, B.C.’s mother found a loaded 9mm handgun 

under her son’s bed and called the police. The responding officer secured the 

firearm and learned that it had been reported stolen. About a month later, the 

State alleged that B.C.—now seventeen years old—was delinquent for 

committing what would be Level 6 felony theft of a firearm if committed by an 

adult. 

[5] At B.C.’s initial hearing, the State amended the delinquent act to Class A 

misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult. B.C. 

admitted to the offense, and the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent. 

During the hearing, three service providers expressed safety concerns with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 8

releasing B.C. to his mother pending disposition. So, the court ordered B.C. 

remain detained and set a date for the dispositional hearing. 

[6] After the hearing was twice continued, B.C. waived the in-person requirement 

and agreed to proceed by written recommendations. B.C. argued that he should 

be returned to his mother’s home on house arrest with electronic monitoring. 

Both the State and the probation department recommended placement in the 

DOC. The State cited B.C.’s recent, prior adjudications and his pattern of 

escalating behavior involving firearms. B.C.’s probation officer noted, “even 

while on house arrest the youth was able to obtain a firearm.” Appellant’s App. 

p. 49. The officer also recommended that B.C. receive services while 

incarcerated. 

[7] A few weeks later, “[a]fter a thorough review of the file and all 

recommendations,” the juvenile court granted wardship of B.C. to the DOC. Id.

at 84. The court reasoned that “remaining in the home would be contrary to the 

welfare of the child because the child is engaging in dangerous behaviors which 

jeopardize” his well-being. Id. at 85. The juvenile court also requested B.C. “be 

placed on parole supervision” to ensure that he successfully completes 

counseling and certain programs while incarcerated. Id. at 84.

[8] B.C. now appeals his placement. 

Standard or Review

[9] A court has broad discretion when choosing the specific disposition of a 

juvenile found to be delinquent. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 8

App. 2019), trans. denied, cert denied, sub nom. M.C. v. Indiana, --- S. Ct. ----

(2020). In this context, that discretion is delineated by statute which, in most 

circumstances, requires a juvenile court to select the “most family like” 

placement. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. But placement in a more restrictive 

environment, like a public institution, is appropriate when it is in the best 

interest of both the juvenile and society. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459.

[10] We will thus reverse a juvenile court’s disposition decision only if there has 

been an abuse of discretion. Id. at 458. The court abuse its discretion if its 

decision is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual 

inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” Id.

Discussion and Decision

[11] B.C. asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to 

the DOC. In making this argument,1 B.C. compares his circumstances to those 

in E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, where a 

panel of this court reversed a juvenile court’s decision to grant wardship of 

fourteen-year-old E.H. to the DOC, id. at 685. But, as detailed below, that 

1

In a single sentence, B.C. also asserts that “with COVID-19 occurring, B.C.’s safety is at issue in being 

placed in location where there are large groups of people in one place.” Appellant’s Br. at 7–8. This argument 

is waived as B.C. has not provided any information or argument about either himself or his placement to 

demonstrate that his “safety is at issue.” See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(8)(a). Waiver aside, we note that the 

DOC has instituted an extensive plan to manage the virus in each of its facilities across the state. See IDOC 

Comprehensive Response to Covid-19, https://www.in.gov/idoc/about-idoc/idoc-comprehensive-response-tocovid-19/ [https://perma.cc/6TSN-WUMU]. And B.C. makes no argument that the DOC’s response is 

somehow inadequate. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 5 of 8

comparison is unavailing; and we find that the juvenile court here did not abuse 

its discretion.

[12] In E.H., this court, in reversing the juvenile court’s disposition decision, 

highlighted four circumstances: E.H. did not have a violent criminal record; 

there was no evidence that he was a threat to the community; E.H. had made 

“considerable progress” responding to services; and his foster-care placement, 

where he had shown “significant improvement,” was a less restrictive 

alternative placement. Id. at 685–86. None of these circumstances is present 

here. 

[13] B.C.’s juvenile record includes several crimes related to violence that he 

committed over a short period of time. In less than a year, B.C. accumulated 

four delinquency referrals that included allegations of auto theft, resisting law 

enforcement, theft of a firearm, dangerous possession of a firearm, and reckless 

driving. Those referrals resulted in three adjudications, including the current 

offense—a second true finding for Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession 

of a firearm if committed by an adult. 

[14] Aside from B.C.’s concerning criminal behavior, the juvenile court was also 

presented with evidence demonstrating that B.C. was a threat to the 

community. One of his counselors explained that, after weekly therapy sessions 

for nearly seven months, B.C. “still minimizes his behaviors.” Tr. p. 9. His 

probation officer expressed the same concern. Appellant’s App. p. 50. And their 

characterization is supported by B.C.’s conduct since he became involved with 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 6 of 8

the juvenile justice system. For example, the night after B.C. was released from 

a juvenile correctional facility, he was arrested for carrying a firearm. It was not 

even nine months later that his mother—with B.C. on the highest form of 

supervision outside of secure detention—found a stolen, loaded 9mm handgun 

under her son’s bed. And though B.C. said that he needed the gun for 

protection from a particular individual, B.C.’s text messages show that he 

escalated the conflict to the point of telling the person “that he would be coming 

to his street within 10 minutes.” Id. at 43. It is not surprising that B.C.’s 

probation officer described him as “almost flippant in his attitude over the 

entire situation.” Id.

[15] The record further reveals that B.C. has made little progress responding to 

services. One of the providers noted that he “continue[d] to be a little 

disheartened that despite the opportunities [B.C.’s] been given” he still 

“make[s] these bad decisions.” Tr. p. 10. Indeed, though B.C. received weekly 

drug tests, he told his probation officer that he smokes marijuana “ at least five 

times a day.” Appellant’s App. p. 48. In addition to failing fourteen of nineteen 

drug tests, B.C. also “attempted to falsify” two of the screens. Id. And, as noted 

above, B.C.’s counselor expressed dismay that, during sessions, he continues to 

minimize his actions. As B.C.’s probation officer expressed, after seven months 

of services, the providers “are not seeing any type of definable change.” Tr. p. 8.

[16] Finally, the record fails to reveal a viable least restrictive placement. B.C. 

argued to be returned to his mother’s home, but two service providers expressed 

safety concerns with that placement, where “there is a lack of supervision and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 7 of 8

consistency.” Id. at 10. Indeed, B.C. was under his mother’s supervision when 

he obtained the stolen firearm. And though his probation officer contacted three 

placement facilities, each declined to accept B.C., with one location citing “the 

seriousness of the child’s charges” and his resistance “to treatment services.” 

Appellant’s App. p. 50.

[17] In sum, the record supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that a more 

restrictive placement for B.C. was in the best interest of both himself and 

society. See M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 459. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion 

in committing B.C. to the DOC. 

[18] We make one final observation. In reviewing B.C.’s case file, we learned that he 

is likely to be released from the DOC before this decision is issued.2 We remind 

B.C. of a July 2019 interview in which he told a psychologist that, if given three 

wishes, one would be to “start over.” Appellant’s App. p. 77. He now has that 

opportunity. And we sincerely hope that B.C.—now an adult—has learned 

from his past, avoids compromising situations going forward, and ultimately 

chooses to be a law-abiding citizen. 

Conclusion

[19] The juvenile court’s decision to place B.C. in the DOC was not an abuse of 

discretion.

2 B.C. is scheduled to be released from DOC custody on November 16, 2020.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-1019 | November 4, 2020 Page 8 of 8

[20] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.