Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 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

Deborah Markisohn

Marion County Public Defender 

Agency, Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Andrew Kobe

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

T.G.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner

October 13, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

49A02-1603-JV-492

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court, Juvenile Division

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge

The Honorable Scott B. Stowers, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No. 

49D09-1512-JD-2281

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 2 of 10

[1] The juvenile division of the Marion Superior Court determined that T.G. was a 

delinquent child for committing what would be Level 4 felony child molesting if 

committed by an adult and Class A misdemeanor indecent display by a youth.

The court also placed T.G. in an inpatient sex offender treatment program. On 

appeal, T.G. claims that the trial court abused its discretion in placing him in 

the inpatient treatment program because a less restrictive placement was 

available.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At the time relevant to this appeal, T.G. was a sixteen-year-old boy living with 

his mother (“Mother”), father, and his eight-year-old brother (“Brother”). T.G. 

suffered from depression and attempted to commit suicide by taking an 

overdose of prescription medication. As a result of this suicide attempt, T.G. 

was placed in a hospital stress center, where he met L.R., a fifteen-year-old girl.

T.G. and L.R. attended the same high school and began to date after they were 

released from the hospital.

[4] T.G. and L.R.’s relationship became sexual, and the two engaged in “rough”

sex, including T.G. choking L.R. T.G. also recorded video of the two having 

sex. On three different occasions, T.G.’s aunt drove him to L.R.’s house, where 

he would sneak inside and have sex with L.R. T.G. sent L.R. pornographic 

videos. T.G. also told L.R. that he had sex with his male best friend.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 3 of 10

[5] When L.R. told T.G. that she wanted to end their relationship, he stated that if 

she did so, he would post the recordings of their sexual acts to the Internet. L.R. 

became upset with T.G. when he told her that he had cheated on her, and T.G. 

threatened to kill himself by drinking bleach and disinfectant if she did not 

forgive him.

[6] L.R. eventually did end her relationship with T.G. Sometime thereafter, L.R. 

received a message on her phone from another girl claiming that T.G. had 

cheated on her too, showing a screenshot of a sex video depicting L.R. and 

T.G. L.R. then received a video from the other girl showing T.G. performing 

oral sex on his eight-year-old Brother’s buttocks and anal area. L.R. was 

horrified by this video and showed it to her mother and step-father, who 

contacted the police.

[7] On December 14, 2015, the State filed a petition alleging that T.G. was a 

delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be 

two counts of child molestation, one count of child exploitation, and one count 

of possession of child pornography. The State later added another allegation 

that T.G. committed additional acts that would be child molesting if committed 

by an adult and two counts of indecent display by a youth.

[8] On January 8, 2016, T.G. entered into an agreement with the State in which he 

admitted that he had committed acts that would be one count of child 

molesting if committed by an adult and one count of indecent display by a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 4 of 10

youth. T.G. admitted to the acts underlying these allegations before the trial 

court, and the trial court set the matter for a dispositional hearing.

[9] Prior to the dispositional hearing, the trial court received a sex offender 

evaluation of T.G. performed by Jennifer Meese at Centerpointe. This 

evaluation determined that T.G. was at a high risk to repeat his sexual behavior 

and a moderate risk to repeat his delinquent behavior. This report 

recommended that T.G. be placed in a residential treatment program.

[10] After this evaluation was completed, the trial court requested another 

evaluation be performed on T.G. by child psychologist Dr. Jim Dalton (“Dr. 

Dalton”). Dr. Dalton’s evaluation put T.G. at a low to moderate risk for 

causing sexual harm to a younger person and at a low to moderate risk for 

acting in a delinquent manner. Dr. Dalton recommended T.G. undergo 

outpatient treatment while living with his aunt and thought residential 

treatment was unwarranted.

[11] The Probation Department submitted to the court a predispositional report 

recommending that T.G. be placed on formal probation and released to the 

custody of his aunt, undergo outpatient sex offender therapy, have no contact 

with Brother, and have no unsupervised access to social media or a mobile 

phone. This predispositional report also indicated that Mother was minimizing 

T.G.’s behavior toward Brother and placing most of the blame on L.R.

[12] A two-day dispositional hearing began on February 24, 2016. The court heard 

evidence from L.R., L.R.’s mother and step-father, T.G.’s mother and aunt, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 5 of 10

and several service providers, including Dr. Dalton. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, on February 25, 2016, the trial court stated: 

Obviously, this is more complex than most cases. There’s a lot 

going on here. There’s the CHINS matter that’s sort of semi 

related to this and we have kind of dual[ing] sex offender 

evaluations. The CHINS Court sort of deferred to the 

delinquency Court, which makes sense under the facts of this 

case and we have two sex offender evaluations that reach 

different conclusions. So, I have to decide based on that 

information what’s in your best interest as well as the 

communit[y]’s best interest. I can tell you that in thirteen years of 

doing this, I don’t know if I recall a more INAUDIBLE case 

than this. Court will proceed to Disposition and incorporate the 

Pre-Dispositional Report. As a finding of the Court, Court will 

award wardship to the Department of Correction, suspend that. 

As a condition of your Probation Suspended Commitment, I will 

order inpatient sex offender treatment at Resolute paid for by the 

Department of Child Services. No contact with [L.R.]. No 

contact with [Brother]. The agreement calls for the no contact 

order for [Brother] to be modified or terminated upon order of 

Court, so that will be an order as well. No unsupervised access to 

internet, television or cell phone use. Delete all social media 

accounts. No access to social media. Also, put in the order that 

prior to discharge whenever that is, also complete another 

ERASER evaluation as well as a new safety plan and put that in 

place for the Court to consider relative care at that point that will 

need to happen. Alright, [T.G.], Suspended Commitment, 

serious business. Do not violate. . . .

Tr. pp. 138-39. Also on February 25, the trial court entered a written 

delinquency dispositional order incorporating these terms. The following day, 

T.G. filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied that same day.

T.G. then filed a notice of appeal on March 9, 2016, and this appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 6 of 10

Standard of Review

[13] When reviewing a juvenile delinquency adjudication, we will consider only the 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s judgment. B.R. v. 

State, 823 N.E.2d 301, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We neither reweigh the 

evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. 

[14] Dispositional decrees in juvenile delinquency cases are governed by Indiana 

Code section 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.

[15] The choice of the specific disposition for a juvenile determined to be delinquent 

is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed 

absent an abuse of that discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 7 of 10

2008). The trial court’s 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. Even if options less harsh than commitment to 

an institution are available to the juvenile court, there are still times when 

commitment to a suitable public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile 

and of society. D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In 

other words, the law requires only that the disposition selected be the least 

restrictive disposition that is consistent with the safety of the community and 

the best interest of the child. Id. Thus, the trial court is accorded wide latitude 

and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. J.S., 881 at 28. It is with this 

deferential standard in mind that we review the trial court’s decision.

Discussion and Decision

[16] T.G. argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to undergo 

inpatient treatment when a less restrictive, community-based option was 

available. T.G first notes that there was evidence that placement with his aunt 

would be appropriate. Specifically, the Department of Child Services (“DCS”) 

had approved a safety plan for T.G. to be placed with his aunt, and the 

Probation Department’s report also approved of T.G. being placed with his 

aunt. He also contends that ordering him to have no contact with L.R. and 

Brother would sufficiently safeguard the community.

[17] T.G. also claims that inpatient therapy was not in his best interests because his 

guardian ad litem (“GAL”) testified that placement with his aunt was in T.G.’s 

best interests and that placement in inpatient therapy might expose him to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 8 of 10

negative influences; Dr. Dalton’s evaluation was more thorough than the initial 

evaluation and concluded that T.G. was at only a low to moderate risk of 

reoffending; and Dr. Dalton’s report also recommended outpatient therapy.

T.G. argues that outpatient therapy was the least harsh disposition, given the 

recommendations for outpatient therapy by Dr. Dalton, the GAL, and the 

Probation Department.

[18] If this had been the only evidence before the trial court, we might agree with 

T.G. that the court’s dispositional order constituted an abuse of discretion.

However, the evidence relied upon by T.G. is almost exclusively evidence that 

does not favor the decision of the trial court, which we may not consider on 

appeal. See B.R., 823 N.E.2d at 306. 

[19] The evidence that favors the trial court’s decision demonstrates that T.G. 

committed a serious and disturbing sex crime against his much younger 

brother. He also engaged in “rough” sex acts with L.R. at a relatively young 

age. L.R. also testified that T.G. also had a penchant for pornography. He 

threatened to post to the Internet video of the recorded sexual activity between 

himself and L.R., and he did send the video to a third party and to L.R.’s 

mother. He also sent video of his sexual abuse of his eight-year-old brother to a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 9 of 10

third party.1 L.R. also testified regarding T.G.’s knowledge of how to 

manipulate his therapists while in the hospital stress center.

[20] In addition to L.R.’s testimony, the initial sex offender evaluation conducted by 

Jennifer Meese at Centerpointe concluded that T.G. was at a high risk to repeat 

his sexual behavior and a moderate risk to repeat his delinquent behavior. This 

initial report also recommended that T.G. be placed in a residential treatment 

program. On appeal, T.G. attempts to attack the credibility of this report and 

argues that Dr. Dalton’s report should have been given more weight. However,

this is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do on 

appeal.

[21] The same is true with regard to T.G.’s claim that placement with his aunt was 

more appropriate. Although there was evidence to support a decision to place 

T.G. with his aunt, there was also evidence before the court that, despite its 

recommendation, DCS still had “concerns” about releasing T.G. to his aunt.

Tr. p. 121. L.R. also testified that it was T.G.’s aunt who facilitated their sexual 

encounters by driving T.G. to L.R.’s home. Although T.G.’s aunt denied this, 

we are not at liberty to second-guess the trial court’s determinations of 

credibility. Moreover, T.G.’s aunt testified that she worked daily until 3:30 p.m. 

and that T.G. planned to attend an evening high school that did not start until 

 

1 Some evidence indicated that T.G. had been manipulated or threatened by another person online to 

perform these acts on Brother. However, the trial court was not required to credit this uncorroborated claim.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-JV-492 | October 13, 2016 Page 10 of 10

3:45 p.m. Thus, it appears that T.G. would have been by himself, unsupervised, 

for a large period of time had he been placed with his aunt.

[22] This is an admittedly close case, and some evidence in the record would have 

supported a decision to place T.G. with his aunt and have him undergo 

outpatient therapy. Indeed, had we been in the trial court’s position as the trier 

of fact, we might have come to a different conclusion. However, on appeal we 

must apply our deferential standard of review. Applying this standard, we can 

only conclude that the trial court did not abuse its significant discretion when it 

determined that the least restrictive disposition that was consistent with the 

safety of the community and in the best interests of T.G. was to order T.G. to 

undergo inpatient residential treatment. We therefore affirm the order of the 

trial court.

[23] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.