Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 1 of 6

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

Katherine N. Worman 

Evansville, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Delinquency 

of: 

N.S.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee. 

November 27, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-1173

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Brett J. Niemeier, 

Judge 

The Honorable Renee A. 

Ferguson, Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

82D04-1904-JD-758 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] N.S. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order committing him to the 

Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”). We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2019, the State alleged that N.S., who was born in May 2004, was a 

delinquent child for having committed criminal trespass as a class A 

misdemeanor if committed by an adult. At the initial hearing, N.S. admitted to 

the allegation and that he had been in a house and did not have permission to 

be there. N.S.’s probation officer filed a preliminary inquiry report which 

included the text of a police report stating that, on April 5, 2019, a detective 

responded to a report of fresh graffiti1 and discovered seven individuals,

including N.S., inside what appeared to be an abandoned house, and N.S. was

disrespectful and hesitant to identify himself. The probation officer’s report 

indicated that N.S.’s brother was one of the co-respondents and that N.S.’s 

juvenile history included delinquent adjudications for criminal mischief, theft, 

and criminal trespass for which he was ordered to complete ten hours of 

community service and four months of probation and cooperate with homebased services; an adjudication for escape for running away from his mother’s 

house during a home pass from Hillcrest Washington Youth Home; a referral 

for theft; a referral for leaving home without permission and false informing;

and an adjudication for escape for which he was detained at the Youth Care 

1 The report states that the graffiti consisted of “Lowd” and “Loosers Club.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume 

II at 17. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 3 of 6

Center and later transferred to residential placement at White’s Residential and 

Family Services (“White’s”) where he completed the program on February 11, 

2019. The report further stated that N.S.’s father is incarcerated for child 

molesting, where N.S.’s sister was the victim, with an earliest release date of 

October 2, 2021. 

[3] According to the probation officer’s report, N.S.’s mother indicated that N.S. 

leaves home even when she instructs him not to do so, has no respect for 

authority figures, has a history of entering abandoned houses, is uncontrollable, 

is a ringleader, and is a bad influence on other kids. It stated that N.S. is not 

enrolled in school and, after returning home after placement at White’s, refused 

to attend the alternative school and demanded traditional or online school. It 

indicated that in a prior intake N.S. reported that he was struck by a car when 

he was three years old and walks with a limp, that White’s referred him to a 

physical therapist, and that his mother reported that he refused to attend those 

appointments unless scheduled when he was not busy. The report stated that 

N.S. was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse disorder, and 

substance abuse and that his actions pose a danger to himself and others. 

[4] In May 2019, the court held a dispositional hearing at which N.S.’s counsel 

requested placement at the Youth Care Center or White’s. N.S.’s probation 

officer stated that N.S. was at White’s for six months and completed all of the 

programming, he was home for only a month and a half before committing the 

new offense, she had instructed N.S. and his mother how to become involved 

with Community Partners if they were having issues, online school through 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 4 of 6

White’s was not an option as his mother does not have home internet, and N.S. 

refused to attend the alternative school or participate in any other services. She 

also indicated that N.S. was familiar with the Youth Care Center, she did not 

feel that it was much of a consequence for his actions or that he was learning 

anything from his behaviors, he has two prior escapes, and his history 

warranted commitment to the DOC. 

[5] N.S. testified that he would have attended a physical therapy appointment if his 

mother had scheduled it, that he would attend any school starting the next year, 

and that he did not think it would benefit him to start at an alternative school

halfway through a semester. The court found that, given his history and the 

rehabilitative efforts attempted through various settings, it was in N.S.’s best 

interest to be placed at the DOC. 

[6] The court issued a dispositional order finding the facts in the pre-dispositional 

report were true and accurate, incorporating the report into its findings, and 

finding that N.S. is beyond the control of the parent, there does not exist any 

viable options for his care and treatment in or outside of the community, and it 

is in the best interests of N.S. and the community that he receive DOC services 

because he had previously received less restrictive alternatives. The order

provided that N.S. has already had the following opportunities or services: two 

placements at Hillcrest Washington Youth Home from which he absconded 

both times; placement at White’s; secure detention; probation services; 

Department of Child Services; and in-home therapy and mentor services. The 

court awarded wardship to the DOC for housing in a facility for children. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 5 of 6

Discussion

[7] N.S. asserts that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DOC rather 

than a less restrictive alternative. He argues the court failed to consider the 

circumstances in his life and that none of his prior adjudications were for 

violent offenses. The State argues the court did not abuse its discretion and 

N.S. has exhibited a significant lack of understanding regarding the seriousness 

of his conduct, was not compliant with services, and showed no respect for 

authority or interest in cooperating with services. 

[8] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the 

disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012). However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-18-

6, which 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” and “close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and 

special needs of the child”; least interferes with family autonomy; is least 

disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child 

and the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable 

opportunity for participation by the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian. 

Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting 

available applies only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the 

best interest of the child.” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. 2007) (citing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1173 | November 27, 2019 Page 6 of 6

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6). We review the juvenile court’s disposition for an 

abuse of discretion. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

[9] The juvenile court heard testimony from N.S., his mother, and his probation 

officer, heard evidence regarding his behavior and placement history,

considered the parties’ arguments, and incorporated the probation officer’s 

report. Based upon the record, and in light of the court’s findings and N.S.’s 

delinquent behavior and failure to adequately respond to prior attempts at 

rehabilitation, we conclude that the court’s ordered placement is consistent with 

his best interest and the safety of the community and find no abuse of 

discretion. See D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding 

the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing D.E. in a DOC facility 

where earlier attempts to rehabilitate his behavior were unsuccessful). 

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court. 

[11] Affirmed. 

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.