Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- JV

- 129 | July 1 4, 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Nancy A. McCaslin McCaslin & McCaslin Elkhart, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE 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 Ca se 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 1 4, 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

co urt 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 then

thirteen

- year - old K.H. was delinquent for committing an act that would be
C lass A misdemeanor theft had it been committed by an adult. According to the petition, K.H. and two othe r juveniles allegedly took toy dart guns from a Walmart store in Elkhart without paying for them. K.H. admitted to the allegations against him . Conseque ntly, 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 managemen t 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. thre atened 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 int o 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 1 4, 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 misdemean or theft had it been committed by an adult. Thus, the juvenile court adjudicated him as delin quent 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. o nce 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 sm oking 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. Appe llant’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 count r y 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 schoo l. 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 1 4, 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 D OC. 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 environme nt; 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 circ umstances before it. C.C. v. State , 831 N.E.2d 215, 216

- 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) . The choice of a disposition for a juve nile 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 1 4, 2020 Page 5 of 7

to the statutory conside rations 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, e ven 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 an d 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 D OC 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 n ormal 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 w hen he was on supervised probation, K.H. either committed some sort of illegal act such as theft or smoking, fled fromCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- JV

- 129 | July 1 4, 2020 Page 6 of 7

home, tried to l eave the country, attempted to join a gang, or failed to appear at mandatory probation meeti ngs 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. t o 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 resou rces 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 th at a delinquent juvenile’s placement in the DOC may still be appropriate even if less restrictive o r 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 1 4, 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 n ot 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

.