Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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

Jeffery A. Earl

Danville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

B.W.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

October 12, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A01-1705-JV-924

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Karen M. Love, 

Judge.

Trial Court Cause No. 

32D03-1606-JD-163

Friedlander, Senior Judge

[1] B.W. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order. We affirm.

[2] B.W. presents one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the 

juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding wardship of B.W. to the 

Department of Correction (DOC).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 2 of 7

[3] On June 20, 2016, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that B.W. had 

committed the offenses of conspiracy to commit robbery, a Level 5 felony if 

committed by an adult,1and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A 

misdemeanor if committed by an adult.2 At the fact-finding hearing, B.W. 

admitted to the allegations, and the juvenile court entered a true finding. The 

court awarded wardship of B.W. to the DOC but suspended that commitment

and placed B.W. on supervised probation for twenty-four months. Specific 

conditions of B.W.’s probation included a 6:30 p.m. curfew, substance abuse 

evaluation and treatment, abstinence from intoxicating or illegal substances, 

school attendance and appropriate behavior, no contact with his co-conspirators 

Z.M. or M.T., at least part-time employment, a letter of apology to the victim, 

truthful testimony against Z.M. and M.T., and participation in home-based 

counseling.

[4] On October 27, 2016, the State filed a petition to modify B.W.’s supervised 

probation due to allegations of a positive drug screen for marijuana and 

suspension from school due to unexcused absences. This petition was soon 

followed by the filing of a supplemental petition to modify based upon B.W.’s 

pending expulsion from school. At a hearing on these matters, B.W. admitted

 

1

Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1 (2014), 35-41-5-2 (2014). 

2

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3 (2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 3 of 7

to violating his probation, and the juvenile court modified the terms of his

probation to add participation in mentoring services and family therapy.

[5] The State filed another petition to modify B.W.’s probation on February 16, 

2017, alleging that B.W. had again violated the terms of his probation, 

specifically the 6:30 p.m. curfew and the no contact with Z.M. The juvenile 

court held a hearing on the State’s petition, after which it entered a true finding 

and imposed the previously-suspended commitment to the DOC. B.W. now 

appeals.

[6] As B.W. concedes, the evidence in this case is undisputed that he violated the 

curfew term of his probation. See Appellant’s Br. p. 9. He claims, however, 

that his commitment to the DOC is improper because it is not the least 

restrictive alternative available. 

[7] The choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent 

is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. J.S. v. State, 881 

N.E.2d 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). This discretion is subject to the statutory 

considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the 

policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. We will reverse a juvenile 

disposition only for an abuse of discretion, which 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 

inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Accordingly, the juvenile court is accorded 

wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[8] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (1997) sets forth the following factors a 

juvenile court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:

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.

Although this section requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive 

placement, that requirement is limited by the safety of the community and the 

best interest of the child. D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 

Thus, the statute recognizes that, in certain situations, the best interest of the 

child is better served by a more restrictive placement. Id.

[9] B.W.’s father testified at the fact-finding hearing that on February 4, 2017, the 

police came to his home and woke him at approximately 1:00 a.m. At that 

time, they informed him that they had heard B.W. was at a party and that Z.M. 

was also at the party. B.W.’s father did not know if B.W. was at home because

he had gone to bed much earlier in the evening when B.W. and his brothers 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 5 of 7

were all at home. He further testified that he and B.W. argue a lot and that 

B.W. knows what he is supposed to do for his probation and “there’s not much 

[B.W.’s father] can do.” Tr. p. 26.

[10] While acknowledging B.W.’s effort to obtain employment, his care coordinator 

testified that each of B.W.’s weekly drug screens had been positive for 

marijuana and that his substance abuse therapist closed his file as unsuccessful 

after he failed to attend three appointments. She further testified that B.W. had 

an appointment for a court-ordered psychological evaluation but had canceled 

the appointment. In summarizing her observations of B.W., she testified, “The 

only thing he really cares about right now is working. He doesn’t seem too 

motivated to go to school, to participate in services.” Id. at 41.

[11] In addition, B.W.’s probation officer testified that B.W.’s cooperation has been 

“hit and miss.” Id. at 43. She testified that B.W. sleeps through appointments 

and that he does not cooperate with his providers, other than his mentor. She 

also mentioned his positive drug screens, his withdrawal from school, and his 

withdrawal from or being “kicked out” of his last GED program. Id. Finally, 

she testified that B.W.’s probation “has not been successful up to this point.” 

Id.

[12] In his testimony, B.W. admitted that he was out past his curfew on February 4, 

2017, at the home of his friend, Cory. He testified that he left Cory’s and went 

over to the party because he was told his brother was there. He claims he 

knocked on the door of the loud party, asked for his brother, told his brother to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 6 of 7

go home, and went back to Cory’s — all without attending the party or seeing 

Z.M. B.W. further admitted that he had failed drug tests, slept through 

scheduled appointments, failed to have a psychological evaluation, and not 

begun GED classes or treatment for his substance abuse issues. Moreover, he 

continued to be equivocal about his marijuana use even as he was testifying at 

the fact-finding hearing. When told he was going to be drug tested after the 

hearing and asked if it would be a “clean” test, B.W.’s response was that it 

“should be.” Id. at 54. The State further asked if he had smoked marijuana 

within the last thirty days, and B.W. responded, “I’d say no. I really — I 

haven’t smoked and I can pass a – I can pass a drug screen. I’m pretty sure of 

it.” Id. at 55.

[13] In stating its decision, the juvenile court observed that although B.W.’s

employment is a positive thing, his education is far more important. The court 

declared it was “very unfortunate” that B.W. canceled his psychological 

evaluation appointment, dropped out of school, and continued to use 

marijuana. Id. at 47. The court further explained that by being sent to the 

DOC, B.W. would be able to obtain his GED, receive a psychological 

evaluation, and receive needed substance abuse treatment. Accordingly, in its 

dispositional order, the court strongly recommended to the DOC that B.W. be 

placed in Camp Summit “so that he can get his GED and get some training.” 

Id. at 61. In its order, the court additionally determined that B.W.’s father 

cannot or will not provide B.W. with the supervision he needs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1705-JV-924 | October 12, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[14] By its terms, Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 recognizes that while less 

restrictive placement options may be available, in certain situations a less 

restrictive placement is not consistent with the best interest of the child. This is 

such a situation. Within the first seven months of his twenty-four-month 

probation term, B.W. had accumulated three petitions to modify. Upon true 

findings for the first two petitions, the juvenile court employed less restrictive 

dispositions and merely continued B.W.’s probation with the addition of 

mentoring services and family therapy. Yet none of these less restrictive 

dispositions were successful at rehabilitating B.W. His continuing actions 

during his short term of probation proved that he is unable or unwilling to abide 

by less restrictive dispositions. As the court remarked, a commitment to the

DOC will significantly increase the chances that B.W. secures his GED and 

training for future employment as well as treatment to address his substance 

abuse issues. Thus, the court’s decision to commit B.W. to the DOC fulfills the 

juvenile system’s dual purpose of rehabilitation and behavioral re-direction. See 

S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (stating that nature of juvenile 

process is rehabilitation and aid to juvenile to direct his behavior so he will not 

later become a criminal), trans. denied.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in committing B.W. to the DOC.

[16] Judgment affirmed.

May, J., and Crone, J., concur.