Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 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

P. Stephen Miller

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

V.H.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 17, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A05-1708-JV-1861

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Daniel G. Heath, 

Judge

The Honorable Daniel Pappas, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

02D07-1705-JD-492

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 2 of 7

[1] V.H. appeals the juvenile court’s entry of a dispositional order that placed her in 

the Department of Correction (“DOC”). V.H. argues the juvenile court abused 

its discretion by placing her in the DOC after the court’s “total failure to 

examine the limited psychological information placed before the court.” (Br. of 

Appellant at 13.) Because the evidence in the record does not demonstrate an 

abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 6, 2017, fifteen-year-old V.H. left Kroger without paying for the

razors, candy, and drinks she took from Kroger. She was arrested in the 

parking lot and gave false information about her identity. On May 8, the State 

requested permission to file a Petition Alleging Delinquency for acts that, if 

committed by an adult, would be Class A misdemeanor conversion1 and Class 

B misdemeanor false informing.2

 The juvenile court granted the State 

permission to file the delinquency petition. Because V.H. had been declared a 

Child in Need of Services (“CHINS”) and was a ward of the State when she 

committed the alleged acts on May 6, 2017, the juvenile court requested a 

report from the Dual Status Assessment Team.

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a).

2 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-3(d)(1). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 3 of 7

[3] V.H. admitted the delinquent acts alleged in the Petition, and the court held a 

dispositional hearing on July 6, 2017. V.H.’s mother was not present because 

she had been arrested a few days earlier on an outstanding warrant, and V.H.’s 

father was not present because he had terminal cancer. The court received 

reports from the County Juvenile Center, the Placement Board, and the Dual 

Status Assessment Team. The Probation Department recommended V.H. be 

committed to the DOC because all previous attempts at probation had failed 

and because V.H. had not been attending school since her last release from the 

DOC. The Dual Status Assessment Team also recommended DOC placement 

because “we don’t have anything else to offer this young lady in the community 

at this point.” (Tr. at 10.) The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) also 

concurred with the recommendation of placement in DOC because, while V.H. 

was in the community, DCS had “been unable to offer [any service] because 

[V.H. has] not stayed in a particular placement long enough.” (Id.) 

[4] The court’s dispositional order contained the following findings:

1. The juvenile has an extensive history of incorrigible behavior.

2. The juvenile minimizes delinquent behavior.

3. The juvenile’s delinquent conduct is chronic and escalating 

and the juvenile has been offered ample opportunities to alter 

such behavior.

4. The juvenile must learn the logical and natural consequences 

of delinquent behavior.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 4 of 7

5. The juvenile is in need of rehabilitation and will benefit from a 

highly structured environment.

6. The parent has little control over juvenile’s behavior.

7. The juvenile was previously ordered committed to the 

Department of Correction.

8. The Court also finds that the disposition set forth hereinafter is 

appropriate due to the seriousness of the offense.

9. The Court finds that the juvenile is in danger of reaching 18 

years of age without a high school diploma or high school 

equivalency (HSE) diploma certificate. The Court finds that the 

juvenile is significantly behind in accumulated high school credits 

and is not on course to graduate from high school. The Court 

finds that the juvenile has been offered numerous education 

opportunities. The Court finds that the juvenile’s educational 

advancement requires the highly structured environment 

provided by the Allen County Juvenile Center.

10. The recommendation of the Dual Status Team is that the 

juvenile be committed to the Department of Correction.

(App. Vol. II at 91-92.) The court then awarded wardship of V.H. to the DOC 

because such detention “is essential to protect the child or community and is in 

the child’s best interests.” (Id. at 92.) 

Discussion and Decision

[5] We initially note that “the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly different 

from the criminal justice system.” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 5 of 7

App. 2010). The goal of juvenile proceedings is “rehabilitation so that the youth 

will not become a criminal as an adult.” Id. (emphasis in original). To 

facilitate this goal, juvenile courts have a number of options available for 

juvenile placement: “from a private home in the community, a licensed foster 

home, a local juvenile detention center, to State institutions[.]” Jordan v. State, 

512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987). 

[6] To assist juvenile courts in selecting amongst available placement alternatives, 

the Indiana Legislature has provided guidance regarding the option to be 

selected for any particular child:

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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 6 of 7

(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the 

child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. Within those parameters, a juvenile court has 

discretion in choosing the disposition appropriate for each juvenile delinquent, 

D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), and we review its 

disposition for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 97. An abuse of discretion 

occurs if the court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions 

to be drawn therefrom.” Id. 

[7] V.H. asserts the court abused its discretion in committing her to the DOC 

because it did not give sufficient consideration to “the limited psychological 

information placed before the court.” (Br. of Appellant at 13.) However, when 

pointing to the information V.H. says the court should have discovered, V.H. is 

citing information that was not placed before the juvenile court and, as V.H. 

acknowledges, is not “evidence.” (Id. at 14.) If there was additional evidence 

V.H. wished the juvenile court to consider, V.H. should have offered such 

evidence at the dispositional hearing.

[8] Furthermore, the court was considering the specifics of V.H.’s circumstances 

when it ordered DOC placement. V.H. was a ward of the State who had been 

removed from her home, and she had not remained in the home where DCS 

placed her, she had not gone to school, and she again committed delinquent 

acts. In light of V.H.’s history with the juvenile system and her failure to 

modify her behavior in response to prior services and placements, the juvenile 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1708-JV-1861 | January 17, 2018 Page 7 of 7

court did not abuse its discretion by placing her in the DOC. See, e.g., D.E., 962 

N.E.2d at 97 (no abuse of discretion in placement of juvenile at DOC where 

less-restrictive dispositions had been unsuccessful). 

Conclusion

[9] The record demonstrates the juvenile court considered the evidence placed 

before it, and that evidence demonstrates the court did not abuse its discretion 

in ordering V.H. committed to the DOC. We accordingly affirm.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.