Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 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

Nancy A. McCaslin

McCaslin & McCaslin

Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Steven Hosler

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

K.H.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner

July 14, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-JV-129

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Michael A. 

Christofeno, Judge

The Honorable Deborah Domine, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

20C01-1804-JD-140

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] K.H. appeals the juvenile court’s modification of disposition order committing 

him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), arguing that the juvenile 

court erred by not placing him in a more rehabilitative environment. Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] On April 13, 2018, the State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that thenthirteen-year-old K.H. was delinquent for committing an act that would be 

Class A misdemeanor theft had it been committed by an adult. According to 

the petition, K.H. and two other juveniles allegedly took toy dart guns from a 

Walmart store in Elkhart without paying for them. K.H. admitted to the 

allegations against him. Consequently, on June 6, 2018, the juvenile court 

adjudicated K.H. to be delinquent, placed him on six months of good behavior,1

and ordered that he participate in individual therapy. 

[3] From that point on, K.H.’s behavior only worsened:

• On September 20, 2018, K.H. was suspended from school after 

violating the rules and arguing with his teacher. The school then 

placed K.H. in its after-hours program to assist with his ongoing 

issues. During this time, K.H. failed to complete case management 

and therapy as per the June 6, 2018, juvenile court order.

• In November 2018, K.H. was again suspended from school due to 

his truancy. Plus, on November 28, 2018, K.H. threatened his 

1 The juvenile court never explains what “good behavior” means as a disposition. At the conclusion of the 

June 6, 2018, hearing, the juvenile court states that “I’m placing you [K.H.] under six months good behavior 

and that good behavior can be extended into probation if you are not doing what needs to be done.” Tr. Vol. 

II p. 11-12. It is our estimation then that “good behavior” is some mitigated form of probation, with fewer 

conditions and/or restrictions attached.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 7

grandmother, who reportedly tried to seek a restraining order 

against him. Accordingly, on December 4, 2018, the juvenile court 

modified K.H.’s disposition order by placing him on probation, 

fitting him with an electronic monitor, and ordering him to attend 

alternative school daily.

• After receiving reports that K.H. was planning on joining a gang, 

on January 16, 2019, the juvenile court intervened and arranged 

for transportation so that he could attend his alternative school.

• On February 20, 2019, K.H. admitted to committing another act 

that would be Class A misdemeanor theft had it been committed 

by an adult. Thus, the juvenile court adjudicated him as 

delinquent and admonished K.H. to attend his schooling. Further, 

the juvenile court placed K.H. in the Juvenile Detention Center 

and stated that it would release K.H. once he earned three school 

credits. K.H. eventually earned those three credits and was 

released on probation to his mother’s home.

• In June 2019, officers from the Elkhart City Police Department 

arrested K.H. because he was walking on a city street while 

smoking a cigar and refused to identify himself. On June 24, 2019, 

the juvenile court modified K.H.’s disposition order, directing

K.H. to obtain an addictions assessment and to have lunch with a 

police officer as part of the “Lunch With a Cop” program. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 87.

• On October 10, 2019, the juvenile court found that K.H. had 

violated his probation by missing five probation appointments, 

failing all his classes, and attempting to leave the country to visit 

his brother without permission. The juvenile court then ordered 

that K.H. participate in additional tutoring services, not have 

contact with his brother, and attend a meeting with his mother to 

discuss the future of his education.

• Upon learning that K.H. was still not attending school or therapy 

sessions, on November 14, 2019, the juvenile court again placed 

K.H. in the Juvenile Detention Center and had him undergo a 

psychological assessment. 

• Following his November 27, 2019, release from the Juvenile 

Detention Center, K.H. was placed on home detention. 

Nevertheless, K.H. violated curfew, failed to attend another

psychological evaluation, and neglected to re-enroll in school. The 

juvenile court ordered that K.H. be detained and placed again in

the Juvenile Detention Center. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 7

[4] Following a December 23, 2019, hearing, the juvenile court modified K.H.’s 

disposition order by placing him in the DOC. In its order, the juvenile court 

stated that: 

The Court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to be 

removed from the home environment; the child has special needs 

that require services for care and treatment that cannot be 

provided in the home and he refuses treatment that is intended to 

diminish risk. 

The Court finds that reasonable efforts were made by the 

Probation Department to prevent or eliminate the need for 

removal of the child. 

Id. at 133. K.H. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] K.H.’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court erred when it placed 

him in the DOC. Specifically, K.H. contends that the juvenile court did not

consider a more rehabilitative environment before modifying the disposition 

order. 

[6] 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, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 5 of 7

to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the community’s 

safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id.

[7] 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 . . . [is] 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).

[8] While the goal of child placement within the juvenile court system is 

rehabilitation and not punishment, R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010), the ultimate decision to place K.H. in the DOC was still 

appropriate, and the juvenile court did not err by doing so.

[9] When presented with multiple opportunities for rehabilitation, K.H. has shown 

few signs of progress at any placement. When he was allowed to stay at home 

and attend school like any normal student, K.H. constantly skipped his classes, 

disobeyed the juvenile court’s orders, and failed to attend his case management 

and therapy sessions. When he was placed in the Juvenile Detention Center, he 

would complete his short-term goals, only to violate the terms of the disposition

order once he returned home. And when he was on supervised probation, K.H. 

either committed some sort of illegal act such as theft or smoking, fled from 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 6 of 7

home, tried to leave the country, attempted to join a gang, or failed to appear at 

mandatory probation meetings regarding the future of his education. 

[10] This Court has already held that “violation of a single condition of probation is 

sufficient to revoke probation.” M.J.H. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 376, 377 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2003). Yet, the juvenile court chose time and time again to allow K.H. to 

remain on supervised probation or home detention even after multiple 

violations. K.H.’s constant run-ins with the law and delinquency adjudications 

are further evidence that he has no interest in rehabilitation through the current 

least restrictive resources available. 

[11] K.H. disagrees, arguing that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it 

made K.H. a ward of the [DOC] without first placing him in a residential 

facility for rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 14. In the past, this Court has held 

that a delinquent juvenile’s placement in the DOC may still be appropriate even 

if less restrictive or less harsh alternatives are available. K.A. v. State, 775 

N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Given K.H.’s questionable and, at 

times, dangerous behavior of committing theft, frequently skipping school, 

threatening family members, violating probation multiple times, and fleeing his

home, placement in the DOC is an appropriate option. See J.B. v. State, 849 

N.E.2d 714, 718-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that juvenile’s placement in 

DOC was warranted after violating probation, committing new offenses, and 

failing to take advantage of prior opportunities for treatment). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-129 | July 14, 2020 Page 7 of 7

[12] Furthermore, the juvenile court has already given K.H. numerous chances for 

reform and could have ordered placement in the DOC at an earlier time; 

nevertheless, the juvenile court here showed leniency and exhausted all options.

Consistent with K.H.’s best interests and the safety of the surrounding 

community, it was not erroneous for the juvenile court to modify K.H.’s 

disposition by placing him in the DOC.

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

Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.