Court Opinion

ID: 9897303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:54.295222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:42.072059
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Aug 23 2023, 9:13 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Marielena Duerring                                         Theodore E. Rokita
South Bend, Indiana                                        Attorney General of Indiana
                                                           Robert M. Yoke
                                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Q.H.,                                                      August 23, 2023
Appellant-Respondent,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-JV-326
        v.                                                 Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Graham C.
Appellee-Petitioner                                        Polando, Magistrate
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           71J01-2211-JD-381

                                Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                              Judges Riley and Bradford concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                              Page 1 of 16
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   Thirteen-year-old Q.H. faced allegations that he was a juvenile delinquent for

      threatening staff and indirectly touching a teacher during an extended outburst

      at Q.H.’s alternative special education school. After being placed in a juvenile

      detention facility because his parents were unavailable to take custody of him,

      Q.H. admitted the delinquency allegations.

[2]   The juvenile court recognized that Q.H.’s misconduct was “relatively minor.”

      Though this was Q.H.’s first contact with the juvenile justice system, the court

      nevertheless imposed the severest sanction by committing Q.H. to the Indiana

      Department of Correction (DOC). We reverse that judgment, finding that the

      juvenile court’s judgment failed to adequately consider the special needs of this

      13-year-old emotionally disabled, special education student new to the juvenile

      justice system.

      Facts
[3]   Q.H. was referred to an alternative special education school due to

      misbehavior. On his first day, Q.H. violated the cell phone policy and was

      removed from his classroom. Q.H. spent the next 90 minutes in the hallway

      pacing, arguing, yelling, throwing chairs, and tearing posters from the wall. He

      cursed at and threatened to kill a school staff member. Q.H. eventually picked

      up a metal filing tray and swung it at other school staff, including a school

      security officer. The officer eventually subdued Q.H. and transported him to St.

      Joseph County’s juvenile detention center.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023       Page 2 of 16
[4]   At the time of the incident, Q.H.’s immediate family—consisting of his

      unemployed mother and several brothers—was homeless. Due to winter

      weather, a homeless shelter allowed the family to sleep at the facility at night,

      but they had to stay elsewhere during the day. Q.H.’s mother could not be

      located before the emergency detention hearing, which proceeded without

      either her or Q.H.’s father, who never participated in these proceedings.

[5]   Although this was Q.H.’s first experience with the juvenile justice system,

      Q.H.’s counsel conceded that continued detention of Q.H. was merited because

      neither of Q.H.’s parents could take custody of him. The juvenile court, after

      finding probable cause to believe Q.H. committed the acts alleged in

      preliminary documents filed by the State, ordered Q.H. to remain at the

      juvenile detention center “to protect him and this community.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 6.

[6]   The State then petitioned to adjudicate Q.H. a delinquent. The petition alleged

      that Q.H. had engaged in misconduct which, if committed by an adult, would

      constitute Level 6 felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor disorderly

      conduct, battery, and criminal recklessness. At Q.H.’s initial hearing on those

      allegations a week later, Q.H. admitted to committing acts of intimidation and

      battery. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the disorderly conduct and

      criminal recklessness allegations. The juvenile court accepted Q.H.’s

      admissions and scheduled a dispositional hearing. Q.H. remained in the

      juvenile detention center through the date of the dispositional hearing.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023         Page 3 of 16
[7]   While detained at the juvenile detention center, Q.H. misbehaved repeatedly,

      leading to 35 incident reports. These reports mostly revealed Q.H.’s threats to

      hurt himself and others, disrespectful behavior toward detention center staff,

      failure to follow directions, and clogging the toilet with his clothing. At times,

      his failure to comply with detention center staff’s demands led to security

      officers restraining him while he resisted.

[8]   At the dispositional hearing, the probation department recommended Q.H.’s

      commitment to the DOC because he had behaved so poorly in secure

      detention. The juvenile court agreed, entering these findings:

              The Court has investigated or has made provisions for the
              delivery of the most appropriate services from those available to
              prevent the child’s placement out of the child’s home or to
              reunify the child and family.

              Said child is in need of supervision, care, treatment and services
              which are NOT available in the local community.

              The child is in need of services beyond those which can be
              provided through probation services.

              There is no available person or facility in St. Joseph County
              Indiana which can provide the child with the necessary services.

              Said child should be removed from the home because
              continuation in the home would not be in the best interest of the
              child.

              The court finds reasonable efforts have been made to finalize a
              permanent plan for the child.

              The St. Joseph County Probation Department has the
              responsibility for placement and care of the child.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023           Page 4 of 16
               This Dispositional Order is consistent with the safety and the best
               interest of the child and is the least restrictive and most
               appropriate setting available close to the parents’ home, least
               interferes with the family’s autonomy, is least disruptive of family
               life, imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and
               the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a
               reasonable opportunity for participation by the child’s parent,
               guardian, or custodian.

       App. Vol. III, p. 119.

       Discussion and Decision
[9]    Q.H. argues that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DOC. The

       disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the

       juvenile court’s discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child’s

       welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.

       R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). We review the juvenile

       court’s disposition for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if its decision is

       clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the

       reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them. Id. “In determining

       whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh evidence

       nor judge witness credibility.” J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2018).

[10]   We start with the premise that “[t]he nature of the juvenile process is

       rehabilitation and aid to the juvenile to direct his behavior so that he will not

       later become a criminal.” A.C. v. State, 144 N.E.3d 810, 812 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2020) (quoting Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987)). “For this

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023         Page 5 of 16
       reason the statutory scheme of dealing with minors is vastly different than that

       directed to an adult who commits a crime.” Id. Juvenile courts have a variety of

       placement options for children with delinquency problems. Id. But Indiana

       Code § 31-37-18-6 requires a court to consider these factors 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.

       I. Q.H.’s Arguments
[11]   Q.H. argues that his commitment to the DOC was unduly harsh because this

       was his first exposure to the juvenile justice system and his misconduct was

       relatively minor. He also asserts that the dispositional order was improper

       because the record reflects no investigation of less restrictive options, including

       residential placement.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023               Page 6 of 16
[12]   We agree that the juvenile court’s consideration of sanctions was inadequate for

       two reasons. First, the pre-dispositional report on which the juvenile court

       relied did not meet statutory requirements. It failed to evaluate placement

       options within the context of Q.H.’s needs, including his cognitive and

       psychological challenges documented in his educational and detention center

       records. Second, when considering the appropriate sanction, the juvenile court

       adopted that defective pre-dispositional report and did not broaden its inquiry

       to include consideration of Q.H.’s cognitive and psychological difficulties. As a

       result, the trial court’s order committing Q.H. to the DOC did not incorporate

       the analysis required by Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6.

       A. Pre-dispositional Report Did Not Comply with Indiana
       Code § 31-37-17-6.1
[13]   The pre-dispositional report prepared by a probation officer in a delinquency

       proceeding must contain “[a] description of all dispositional options considered

       in preparing the report.” Ind. Code § 31-37-17-6.1(a)(1) (2022). The pre-

       dispositional report also must include “[a]n evaluation of each of the

       [dispositional] options considered in relation to the [recommended] plan of

       care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement” for the child. Ind. Code § 31-37-

       17-6.1(a)(2) (2022).1 The pre-dispositional report prepared in Q.H.’s case does

       not meet this second statutory requirement.

       1
         Indiana Code § 31-37-17-6.1 was amended effective July 1, 2023, but continues to impose the same
       requirements found in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of the prior statute applicable here.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                            Page 7 of 16
[14]   The report failed to evaluate dispositional options within the context of Q.H.’s

       needs, including his cognitive and psychological challenges. The report does

       not mention Q.H.’s cognitive challenges other than occasional references to his

       inability to understand the impact of his behavior. The only reference to Q.H.’s

       mental health is the report’s statement that Q.H. has “[n]o mental health

       diagnoses at this time.” App. Vol. III, p. 81. Yet, Q.H.’s cognitive difficulties

       were documented in mental health and behavior incident reports prepared by

       juvenile detention staff. Similarly, Q.H.’s school records reflected Q.H.’s

       psychological challenges.2

       i. Cognitive Difficulties

[15]   Q.H.’s cognitive difficulties were evident on his first day in the juvenile

       detention facility. For instance, Q.H. “had difficulty with reading and

       comprehending the screener” while completing a risk assessment when he first

       entered the juvenile detention facility. App. Vol. II, p. 47. Therefore, “in

       violation of standard administration procedures,” the paperwork had to be read

       aloud to him by a detention officer. Id.

       2
         The school and juvenile detention center records are included in Q.H.’s appendix but are not file marked or
       reflected on the CCS. The State cites some of those documents in its brief and has not sought to strike those
       portions of Q.H.’s appendix.
       Appendices properly prepared under Indiana Appellate Rule 50 include only documents that are part of the
       Record on Appeal. App. R. 50(A)(2), (B)(1). The Record on Appeal consists of “the Clerk’s Record and all
       proceedings before the trial court ….” Ind. Appellate Rule 27. The Clerk’s Record includes the CCS and “all
       papers, pleadings, documents, orders, judgments, and other materials filed in the trial court . . . or listed in
       the CCS.” Ind. Appellate Rule 2(E). We therefore assume the school and juvenile center records were part of
       the trial court record and available to the probation department and juvenile court.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                                  Page 8 of 16
[16]   The assessment identified Q.H. as having “coping problems.” Q.H. was “very

       difficult to engage in conversation” and struggled with reading and writing,

       particularly his spelling. Id. at 48. After being screened for learning disabilities,

       he was referred for more testing. The record, however, contains no evidence of

       any further testing.

[17]   Q.H. also scored in the “Caution” range for “Angry/Irritable.” Id. The forensic

       clinician who evaluated him recommended a mental health assessment for

       Q.H. The psychologist who supervised mental health services at the juvenile

       detention facility recommended “no further follow-up” if Q.H. had been

       enrolled in special education.3 The clinician later conducted a limited mental

       health assessment, but no psychological examination was ever conducted.

       ii. School Records

[18]   Q.H.’s school records also suggest Q.H. has significant cognitive and emotional

       challenges. Before his detention, Q.H. was failing nearly all his special

       education classes. Though Q.H. was 13 years old, he could not add or subtract

       large numbers and lacked basic multiplication and division skills. One teacher

       3
        Although the record does not reveal the psychologist’s reasoning, he may have assumed that a
       psychological evaluation and learning disabilities testing were conducted as part of Q.H.’s special education
       enrollment. But even if that were the case, the record reflects no effort to gain access to or analyze any prior
       psychological evaluation or learning disabilities assessment in evaluating Q.H.’s needs and sanction.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                                   Page 9 of 16
       questioned whether he lacked the cognitive ability to complete tasks even in

       special education classrooms.

[19]   The school records also identify Q.H. as “a student with an emotional

       disability” who will not succeed in a classroom environment without strong

       support or with “too many supports.” Id. at 126. The record does not reveal

       whether or how this “emotional disability” relates to the angry/irritable finding

       in Q.H.’s mental health assessment conducted in the juvenile detention center.

       Regardless, this “emotional disability” is not specifically identified in the

       record, presumably due to the lack of psychological testing of Q.H.

       iii. Q.H.’s Negative Behavior Related to his Cognitive and Emotional Struggles

[20]   The pre-dispositional report’s failure to evaluate dispositional options within

       the context of Q.H.’s needs was particularly problematic because the record

       repeatedly suggests a link between Q.H.’s negative behaviors and his apparent

       cognitive and emotional difficulties. For instance, two of Q.H.’s “Behavior

       Incident Reports” in detention arose from his failure to complete written essays.

       App. Vol. III, pp. 24, 26. During the first of these incidents, Q.H. reported that

       he could not complete the essay. During the second, he simply refused to write

       the essay. Although the record suggests Q.H.’s cognitive limitations may have

       left him unable to complete the essays, his refusal was treated as a willful

       violation of detention center rules.

[21]   Moreover, Q.H.’s negative behaviors appeared to escalate when he was

       emotional. When Q.H. returned from a court hearing upset over his continuing

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023        Page 10 of 16
       detention, Q.H. was combative and threatened to hurt himself or others if he

       were not released from detention. Refusing to lay down in his bed, Q.H.

       ultimately was placed in “mechanical restraints”—presumably, handcuffs—

       until he calmed down. Id. at 52. He was found crying in his room that day.

       Q.H. repeatedly apologized and reported that he was “going through a lot,”

       given that he expected to go home that day, he was homesick, and his brother

       was ill. Id. at 57.

[22]   Q.H. also reported having memory difficulties. Id. at 85. The forensic clinician

       concluded that Q.H.’s “behavioral difficulties [appear to] stem from poor

       memory retention and lack of coping skills.” App. Vol. II, p. 91. She also

       reported that the escalation in Q.H.’s threats to others and of self-harm

       “appear[s] to be a result of frustration and poor coping skills, rather than

       genuine risk of harm.” Id. at 85. She later reported that Q.H. struggled “to

       identify and articulate thoughts/feelings/emotions.” Id. at 111. A juvenile

       detention officer also recognized that Q.H. “doesn’t know why he gets angry.”

       App. Vol. III, p. 31.

[23]   The forensic clinician concluded that “[d]ue to [Q.H.’s] limited introspective

       skills, ongoing assessment and management will be heavily reliant on [his]

       externalizing behavior and stability.” App. Vol. II, p. 111. In other words,

       Q.H. was judged at the juvenile detention facility largely by his behavior alone,

       although his behavior seemingly had been linked to his cognitive and emotional

       difficulties. Consistent with that behavior-focused approach, the pre-

       dispositional report recommended Q.H.’s commitment to DOC due to his poor

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023       Page 11 of 16
       behavior without considering his need for treatment for cognitive or emotional

       impairments. The pre-dispositional report therefore violated the applicable

       version of Indiana Code § 31-37-17-6.1(a)(2).

       B. Lack of Investigation into Q.H.’s Needs Tainted Findings
[24]   Adopting the findings in this defective pre-dispositional report, the juvenile

       court similarly focused exclusively on Q.H.’s behavior and ignored Q.H.’s

       cognitive and emotional needs. In its order committing Q.H. to the DOC, the

       court stated:

                [T]he Respondent is quite young, and . . . the offenses for which
                he has been adjudicated delinquent are relatively minor.
                However, his offenses are of a piece [sic] with the repeated,
                profoundly antisocial behavior he has displayed while detained,
                while at school, and while at home (the latter leading to his
                family's ejection from a housing facility). If even a secure
                environment has failed to protect the “community” within the
                detention facility, it stands to reason that a less secure
                environment, whether the home or a residential facility, would
                not provide further opportunity for disruptive and violent
                behavior. The Court therefore finds that any less restrictive
                placement is inconsistent with his safety and that of this
                community.

       App. Vol. III, p. 98.4

       4
        The record does not reveal “profoundly antisocial behavior” by Q.H. at the family’s housing facility. The
       probation officer merely noted at the dispositional hearing that unspecified behavior by Q.H. at the homeless
       shelter led to their being “kicked out” before his detention. Tr. Vol. II, p. 28. Mother phrased their departure
       as being “timed out” without any mention of the cause. Id. at 20.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                                 Page 12 of 16
[25]   The record does not support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable efforts

       have been made to finalize a permanency plan for Q.H. The record shows that

       Q.H. had an emotional disability and intellectual challenges for which

       therapeutic care and treatment needs were uninvestigated. Under these

       circumstances, more was needed than a summary conclusion that a 13-year-old

       special education student navigating the juvenile justice system for the first time

       should be committed to the DOC. See C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2022) (commitment to DOC is the most restrictive sanction available

       and therefore should be treated as a last resort).

[26]   We also find no evidence that the juvenile court considered how Q.H.’s

       unstable home may have affected his behavior and mental status. Q.H.’s school

       records showed that Q.H. was absent, late, or sick at his old school most of the

       month before the incident at his new school. App. Vol. II, p. 116. During that

       time, Q.H.’s family was homeless and spent their days with a relative and their

       nights at a homeless shelter.

[27]   By the time of Q.H.’s dispositional hearing, Q.H.’s 16-year-old brother had

       multiple contacts with the juvenile justice system including two that involved

       alleged habitual disobedience of a parent. Q.H.’s brother was adjudicated a

       delinquent for trespassing and resisting law enforcement and faced two more

       pending delinquency petitions at the time of Q.H.’s dispositional hearing. The

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023       Page 13 of 16
       pre-dispositional report in Q.H.’s case suggests that the permanency plan in his

       brother’s delinquency proceeding a year earlier involved his brother’s placement

       with a relative because of concerns over Q.H.’s mother’s “poor compliance and

       unstable housing.” Id. at 79. Yet, in Q.H.’s case, neither the pre-dispositional

       report nor the juvenile court’s judgment reflects any consideration of the impact

       that Q.H.’s unstable home life had on his behavior or future rehabilitative

       needs.5 The pre-dispositional report simply concludes that relative care is

       inappropriate because he “needs a higher level of care.” App. Vol. III, p. 83.

[28]   The only apparent consideration of Q.H.’s home life was in the risk assessment

       found in the pre-dispositional report and incorporated into the trial court’s

       findings. The risk assessment showed Q.H.’s risk of violence was high due to

       his lack of support combined with stress and poor coping skills. In other words,

       Q.H.’s lack of family support, which seemingly was partly due to the family’s

       homelessness, and Q.H.’s poor coping skills, which the forensic clinician linked

       to Q.H.’s intellectual and emotional problems, were used to justify the harshest

       sanction available. But those issues reasonably justified a less restrictive

       sanction. Compare D.P. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 767, 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

       (finding child’s cognitive difficulties and mental illness were “special

       circumstances” justifying less restrictive sanction than DOC commitment).

       5
         The record suggests that the Indiana Department of Child Services, which had been involved with Mother
       and brothers more than a decade earlier, was not currently involved with Q.H.’s family. This is despite
       Q.H.’s deplorable school attendance, two children in the family facing multiple delinquency petitions, and
       the family’s homelessness.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023                            Page 14 of 16
[29]   These omissions in the pre-dispositional report and juvenile court’s analysis

       could have been corrected before the dispositional judgment, either through a

       continuance or court-ordered testing. Earlier in the proceedings, the probation

       department requested and obtained a continuance of the dispositional hearing

       “to identify an appropriate placement for [Q.H.] given his recent behavior in

       Detention.” Id. at 168. But the pre-dispositional report reflects that the

       department ultimately did not investigate any possible placements outside the

       DOC. Q.H. learned of that omission belatedly because he did not receive the

       pre-dispositional report until the day of the rescheduled dispositional hearing.

       During the dispositional hearing, however, Q.H. requested a continuance to

       allow further investigation. The juvenile court implicitly denied the request,

       given that the court proceeded with the hearing as scheduled.

[30]   The juvenile court also could have sua sponte ordered any necessary testing of

       Q.H. before or during the dispositional hearing. A court that has authorized the

       filing of a delinquency petition “may order examination of the child to provide

       information for the dispositional hearing.” Ind. Code § 31-32-12-1(3). Such a

       court “may also order medical examinations and treatment of the child under

       any circumstances otherwise permitted by this section.” Id.

       II. Conclusion
[31]   Given this record, the juvenile court could not reasonably determine under

       Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 that commitment to the DOC was the least

       restrictive disposition consistent with Q.H.’s best interests and community

       safety. We therefore conclude the court abused its discretion in committing
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023           Page 15 of 16
Q.H. at the age of 13 to the DOC for his first and relatively minor juvenile

offense. Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s commitment of Q.H. to

the DOC and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-326 | August 23, 2023     Page 16 of 16