Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 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

John M. Haecker

Squiller & Hamilton, LLP

Auburn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

C.M.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner

August 14, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-JV-607

Appeal from the DeKalb Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kurt Grimm, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

17C01-1910-JD-44

17C01-2002-JD-7

Baker, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] C.M. appeals the dispositional order entered by the juvenile court, arguing that 

the juvenile court erred by placing C.M. in the Department of Correction 

(DOC) because less restrictive placements were available. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

Facts

[2] In October 2019, C.M. was on probation following an informal adjustment for 

striking his mother. While on probation, he destroyed some of his mother’s 

personal property and harassed a student at school by encouraging the student 

to commit suicide. As a result, on October 23, 2019, the State filed a 

delinquency petition in Cause Number 17C01-1910-JD-044 (JD-44) alleging 

that C.M. was delinquent for acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor 

criminal mischief and Class B misdemeanor harassment had they been 

committed by adults. In December 2019, the juvenile court found C.M. to be 

delinquent and placed him at White’s, a residential treatment program in 

Wabash.

[3] On February 6, 2020, the State filed a petition to modify C.M.’s dispositional 

decree. It alleged that during the three months C.M. had been at White’s, he

had, among other things, threatened to slit another student’s throat, hit a peer in 

the face, engaged in a physical altercation with another student, thrown 

furniture, threatened self-harm, barricaded himself in his room, threatened staff, 

left his cottage without permission, thrown a snow-covered rock that hit a staff 

member in the face, broken into and damaged a locked shed, and spat in the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 6

face of a law enforcement officer. White’s refused to permit C.M. to remain at 

the facility because it could not guarantee the safety of C.M. or the other 

students if he stayed there.

[4] On February 11, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition in Cause Number 

17C01-2002-JD-7 (JD-7), alleging that C.M. had committed acts that would 

have been Level 6 felony battery by bodily waste, Class A misdemeanor battery, 

Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor 

criminal mischief had they been committed by an adult. C.M. admitted to 

throwing the snow-covered rock at the White’s staff member, which was the 

basis of the battery allegation, and the State dismissed the other allegations.

[5] On March 3, 2020, the juvenile court held a combined dispositional hearing for 

JD-44 and JD-7. C.M.’s probation officer testified at the hearing, explaining 

that C.M. has a history of tormenting his mother and other family members. 

She also testified that he was not ready to accept treatment, that he was a 

danger to himself and the community, and that placement at the DOC was 

appropriate because he needed a structured, secure environment. According to 

the probation officer, C.M. has serious mental and emotional health problems, 

including oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit disorder, and 

intermittent explosive disorder.

[6] At the time of the dispositional hearing, C.M.’s relationship with his mother 

had improved, and he asked to be allowed to be returned home. His probation 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 6

officer was skeptical that C.M. would be compliant at home, and the trial court 

agreed:

Everything I’ve seen from you in my courtroom has been 

defiance from day one. . . . [T]here is no track record of 

compliance. I have no belief that you would stay at home. I 

have no belief that you would comply with electronic 

monitoring. I have no belief that you would voluntarily 

participate in necessary services in your mother’s home. I don’t 

believe any of that.

Tr. Vol. II p. 43. In JD-44, the juvenile court entered a modified dispositional 

order awarding wardship to the DOC. In JD-77, the juvenile court found that 

C.M. had committed the equivalent of Class A misdemeanor battery and 

awarded wardship to the DOC. C.M. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] C.M.’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by ordering that he 

be committed to the DOC. 

[8] We will reverse a juvenile court’s placement of a delinquent minor only if the 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 

before it. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 216-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The 

choice of a disposition for a juvenile is within the sound discretion of the 

juvenile court, and it is accorded wide flexibility in making that judgment. E.L. 

v. State, 783 N.E.2d 360, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). That disposition is subject, 

however, to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the 

community’s safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 5 of 6

[9] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6(1) states that a juvenile court shall enter a 

dispositional decree that is “in the least restrictive (most family like) and most 

appropriate setting available; and . . . consistent with the best interest and 

special needs of the child[.]” However, even if less restrictive options are 

available, a juvenile court’s placement of a juvenile in the DOC is not 

erroneous when “earlier attempts at rehabilitation through less restrictive means 

were unsuccessful.” D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 

[10] The case before us started with C.M. on probation after striking his mother. He 

violated that probation by committing new offenses of criminal mischief and 

harassment, which resulted in his placement at White’s. While at White’s, 

C.M. amassed a lengthy and serious list of infractions in just three months. He 

threatened harm to himself and others, caused property damage, broke 

countless rules, spat on a law enforcement officer, and threw a snow-covered 

rock at a staff member. As a result, White’s refused to allow C.M. to remain 

there. 

[11] It is apparent, therefore, that the early attempts at rehabilitation through less 

restrictive means have been unsuccessful. Moreover, there is evidence in the 

record that placement of C.M. in a less restrictive setting (especially in the care 

of his mother, whom he has physically and emotionally tormented for years) 

would risk harm to the community and to C.M. and would carry a low 

likelihood of C.M. attending and complying with the treatment he so clearly 

needs. Under these circumstances, we find that the juvenile court did not err by 

ordering that C.M. be placed in the DOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 6 of 6

[12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.