Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 1 of 10

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

Paula M. Sauer 

Danville, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana 

Laura R. Anderson 

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.P.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

November 29, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A04-1708-JV-1916

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Karen M. Love, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

32D03-1608-JD-228

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 2 of 10

[1] A.P. appeals the trial court’s order to modify supervision and commit her to the 

Department of Correction for housing in any correctional facility for children. 

A.P. raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its 

discretion in entering its order. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On or about late August 27, 2016, A.P. met a woman for a fight and during the 

fight stabbed her with a knife causing lacerations to the woman’s cheek and arm 

requiring her to go to the hospital. On August 29, 2016, the State filed a 

delinquency petition which alleged that A.P., who was born on August 19, 

1999, committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute 

aggravated battery, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and battery by 

means of a deadly weapon. 

[3] On September 12, 2016, A.P. entered an admission and the court found as true 

the delinquent acts of aggravated battery as a level 3 felony if committed by an 

adult and the acts of battery resulting in serious bodily injury and battery as 

level 5 felonies if committed by an adult. The court released A.P. to the 

custody of her parents, ordered that she be placed under the supervision of the 

Hendricks County Probation Department for a period of twenty-four months, 

awarded wardship of A.P. to the Department of Correction (the “DOC”) for 

housing in any correctional facility for children or any community based 

correctional facility for children, and ordered that the commitment to wardship 

was suspended on the condition that A.P. comply with the order of supervision 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 3 of 10

issued to her for the duration of the probation supervision period. The order of 

suspension required A.P. to submit to drug screens; comply with a curfew; 

complete certain programs including mental health/substance evaluation and 

all recommended treatment; attend school as legally required or obtain her 

GED; complete anger control counseling; and complete Cross Systems of Care 

Services and follow all recommended treatment.

[4] On June 26, 2017, the probation office filed a petition to modify supervision 

alleging that A.P. violated the terms of her supervision and that, on June 14, 

2017, she tested positive for marijuana on a urine drug screen. On July 13, 

2017, the probation office filed a supplemental petition to modify alleging that 

A.P. was required to participate in Cross Systems of Care Services and that, 

according to a monthly report completed by a therapist on July 9, 2017, A.P. 

met for only one session in June and refused to attend a scheduled family 

session with the therapist. The petition alleged that, due to her lack of 

participation, the therapist who was referred through Cross Systems of Care 

recommended case closure. 

[5] On July 24, 2017, the court held a hearing at which A.P. and her care 

coordinator, probation officer, and parents were present. The court found that 

A.P. violated the terms of her supervision, that she used marijuana while on 

probation, and that she had three referrals for substance abuse treatment and 

refused to participate in services. The court awarded wardship of A.P. to the 

DOC for housing in any correctional facility for children and stated that it 

would recommend that she have a thirty-day intake and assessment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 4 of 10

Discussion

[6] The juvenile court is given “wide latitude and great flexibility” in determining 

the specific disposition for a child adjudicated a delinquent. 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:

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.

A disposition will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of the juvenile 

court’s discretion, which occurs when the juvenile court’s order is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the 

reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 

386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 5 of 10

[7] A.P. asserts the court abused its discretion in sentencing her to the DOC when 

she had no history of delinquency, her probation violations were relatively 

minor infractions, and there were less restrictive alternatives available. She 

argues that, by smoking marijuana and not fully engaging with her therapist, 

she did not pose further risk to anyone other than perhaps herself; her overall 

risk assessment score placed her in the low risk to reoffend category; she took 

responsibility for her behavior, admitting the initial offense and the allegations 

in the petitions to revoke; and her parents were paying her costs and fees, were 

present for every hearing, displayed support and a firm but fair disciplinary 

approach, and were strongly opposed to placement in the DOC. She states that 

she was just twenty-six days away from her eighteenth birthday when she was 

committed to the DOC, and she earned her GED and completed a mentoring 

program to which she had been referred. 

[8] The State maintains that the court did not abuse its discretion, that A.P. had 

been placed on supervised probation with a suspended commitment to the 

DOC for serious and violent felony offenses, that she violated her probation by 

testing positive for marijuana and not participating in treatment and therapy, 

and that, despite her parents’ best efforts, A.P. continued to use marijuana and 

did not take her mental health medications. 

[9] The record reveals that, in September 2016, A.P. was adjudicated delinquent 

for fighting another person during which she stabbed the person with a knife in 

the arm and cheek, causing the person to go to the hospital, and that the court 

placed her under the supervision of probation for twenty-four months. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 6 of 10

court also awarded wardship of A.P. to the DOC and suspended the wardship 

on the condition that she comply with the order of supervision during the

probation supervision period. The court told A.P.: “[A.P.], you need to 

understand, we’ve got this referral for Cross Systems of Care and if you don’t 

cooperate with them, the next thing the Court may be looking at is placing you 

outside of your parents’ home in a placement facility or the Department of 

Corrections.” Transcript Volume 2 at 54. The court also said “you need to be 

sure that when you talk with the folks from Cross Systems of Care – you’re old 

enough to ask intelligent questions and about what’s expected of you and – but 

again, these services are to help you learn to manage your anger so that, as an 

adult, you don’t have any more involvement with the criminal justice system.” 

Id. A.P.’s probation officer later filed petitions alleging A.P. had tested positive 

for marijuana and had not complied with the term of her supervision requiring 

her to participate in Cross Systems of Care services. 

[10] At the July 24, 2017 hearing, the State indicated that A.P. had not complied

with Cross Systems of Care and that probation was out of options. A.P.’s 

attorney stated they tried to locate facilities to take A.P. as opposed to the DOC 

but that A.P. would turn eighteen in August and due to her history none of the 

facilities would accept her. The court asked if the allegation that she refused to 

cooperate with the therapist at Cross Systems of Care was true, and A.P. replied 

affirmatively. A.P.’s care coordinator testified that three referrals had been 

made for her, that the family initiated the second referral and A.P. failed to 

follow through with that program, that a third referral was made and she had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 7 of 10

some ups and downs and continues to test positive for marijuana and there was 

a little issue with therapists, and that the last report received was that the third 

referral had agreed to have A.P. return. The coordinator testified that A.P. 

successfully completed a mentoring program and obtained her GED. 

[11] A.P.’s probation officer testified that A.P. was required to participate in 

substance abuse treatment, home based therapy, and drug screens, that in the 

prior month she had not been participating in therapy, that with substance 

abuse there had been some issues with her actually participating during the 

sessions and she was suspended for a period of time, and that her understanding 

was that the referral was reconsidering A.P. and she had an appointment to see 

if they would take her back. The probation officer further testified that A.P. is 

also supposed to be taking two medications but that she is not doing so. When 

asked her recommendation for A.P., the probation officer responded “[w]ell, 

unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any agencies that will take her for the 30

day diagnostic evaluation that we were hoping to have done because of her age 

and because of her history of violence. So, the only real option right now 

would be DOC.” Id. at 84. The probation officer identified eight placement 

options that had been contacted regarding local placement for A.P. and 

indicated that two placement facilities were still reviewing for A.P. and were 

pending. 

[12] When asked why one of the placement facilities was considered a failure and 

closed out, A.P. indicated that her substance abuse counselor had her husband 

do the mouth swabs, that it was just a lot of sexual harassment and she felt very 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 8 of 10

uncomfortable, that she contacted her mentor, which was why it was closed 

out, and that she was participating. A.P. indicated that, if the court would 

allow her back on probation or to be accepted at one of the out of home 

placements, her goal would be to obtain a job and get into college. When asked 

if she knew she was supposed to complete Cross Systems of Care as part of her 

probation including substance abuse treatment, and that she was not to use 

substances while on probation, she responded affirmatively. She indicated that 

DCS became involved in the case of her treatment by her counselor’s husband 

and took no further action. She indicated she had not met with her therapist in 

the month of July. A.P.’s father testified that she had done great until the last 

few months, that he thought she was influenced by friends and she just wanted 

to rebel a little bit to try to show that she wanted to be grown up, and that as 

parents they had to step back and let her bump her head and see that the court 

system is not playing and this is serious, but he also indicated that that he did 

not think placement in the DOC was going to help her. 

[13] The court stated that “probation has exhausted all our options and Cross 

Systems of Care is our most intensive option that we can provide” and that due 

to the serious nature of the underlying charges, it would commit A.P. to the 

DOC. Id. at 95. In its written dispositional order, the court found in part that 

A.P. was given a suspended commitment in September 2016 and placed on 

probation for twenty-four months, the probation terms included a requirement 

for substance abuse evaluation and successful completion of all recommended 

treatment and a referral to Cross Systems of Care, that A.P. used marijuana 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 9 of 10

while on probation, and that she had three referrals for substance abuse 

treatment and refused to participate in services. It further found that A.P. 

refused to participate in therapy that was referred by Cross Systems of Care; she

has mental health issues and refuses to take her medication, she has had three 

to five acute hospitalizations, has received intensive outpatient services, and has 

been in residential care; Cross Systems of Care attempted to place her at several 

facilities which refused to accept her for placement; she would turn eighteen on 

August 19, 2017; she needs mental health and substance abuse treatment and 

education which she refuses to participate in; and that probation has exhausted 

all services available. The court also indicated that A.P. has special needs that 

require services for care and treatment that cannot be provided in the home and 

that reasonable efforts were made by the probation department to prevent the 

need for removal and that A.P. refuses to cooperate. The court awarded 

wardship of A.P. to the DOC for housing in any correctional facility for 

children.

Conclusion

[14] Based upon the record and under the circumstances, we cannot say that the 

court abused its discretion in concluding that A.P. violated the terms and 

conditions of her supervision with the probation department and in awarding 

wardship of her to the DOC for housing in a correctional facility for children. 

See D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting that the 

juvenile had presented the option of placement at a residential treatment center 

and that the trial court instead placed the juvenile in a DOC facility because 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1708-JV-1916 | November 29, 2017 Page 10 of 10

attempts to rehabilitate his behavior were unsuccessful; observing that the 

juvenile was on probation when he committed the acts underlying the 

adjudication, had already violated that probation by testing positive for 

marijuana, and had been suspended or expelled from multiple schools; and 

holding that under the circumstances the court’s placement in the DOC was not 

an abuse of discretion). 

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s order. 

[16] Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.