C.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Aug 14 2020, 8:34 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John M. Haecker Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Squiller & Hamilton, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Auburn, Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
C.M., August 14, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-JV-607
v. Appeal from the DeKalb Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt Grimm,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
17C01-1910-JD-44
17C01-2002-JD-7
Baker, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 6
[1] C.M. appeals the dispositional order entered by the juvenile court, arguing that
the juvenile court erred by placing C.M. in the Department of Correction
(DOC) because less restrictive placements were available. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Facts
[2] In October 2019, C.M. was on probation following an informal adjustment for
striking his mother. While on probation, he destroyed some of his mother’s
personal property and harassed a student at school by encouraging the student
to commit suicide. As a result, on October 23, 2019, the State filed a
delinquency petition in Cause Number 17C01-1910-JD-044 (JD-44) alleging
that C.M. was delinquent for acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief and Class B misdemeanor harassment had they been
committed by adults. In December 2019, the juvenile court found C.M. to be
delinquent and placed him at White’s, a residential treatment program in
Wabash.
[3] On February 6, 2020, the State filed a petition to modify C.M.’s dispositional
decree. It alleged that during the three months C.M. had been at White’s, he
had, among other things, threatened to slit another student’s throat, hit a peer in
the face, engaged in a physical altercation with another student, thrown
furniture, threatened self-harm, barricaded himself in his room, threatened staff,
left his cottage without permission, thrown a snow-covered rock that hit a staff
member in the face, broken into and damaged a locked shed, and spat in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 6
face of a law enforcement officer. White’s refused to permit C.M. to remain at
the facility because it could not guarantee the safety of C.M. or the other
students if he stayed there.
[4] On February 11, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition in Cause Number
17C01-2002-JD-7 (JD-7), alleging that C.M. had committed acts that would
have been Level 6 felony battery by bodily waste, Class A misdemeanor battery,
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief had they been committed by an adult. C.M. admitted to
throwing the snow-covered rock at the White’s staff member, which was the
basis of the battery allegation, and the State dismissed the other allegations.
[5] On March 3, 2020, the juvenile court held a combined dispositional hearing for
JD-44 and JD-7. C.M.’s probation officer testified at the hearing, explaining
that C.M. has a history of tormenting his mother and other family members.
She also testified that he was not ready to accept treatment, that he was a
danger to himself and the community, and that placement at the DOC was
appropriate because he needed a structured, secure environment. According to
the probation officer, C.M. has serious mental and emotional health problems,
including oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit disorder, and
intermittent explosive disorder.
[6] At the time of the dispositional hearing, C.M.’s relationship with his mother
had improved, and he asked to be allowed to be returned home. His probation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 6
officer was skeptical that C.M. would be compliant at home, and the trial court
agreed:
Everything I’ve seen from you in my courtroom has been
defiance from day one. . . . [T]here is no track record of
compliance. I have no belief that you would stay at home. I
have no belief that you would comply with electronic
monitoring. I have no belief that you would voluntarily
participate in necessary services in your mother’s home. I don’t
believe any of that.
Tr. Vol. II p. 43. In JD-44, the juvenile court entered a modified dispositional
order awarding wardship to the DOC. In JD-77, the juvenile court found that
C.M. had committed the equivalent of Class A misdemeanor battery and
awarded wardship to the DOC. C.M. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] C.M.’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by ordering that he
be committed to the DOC.
[8] 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, to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the
community’s safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[9] 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 . . . 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).
[10] The case before us started with C.M. on probation after striking his mother. He
violated that probation by committing new offenses of criminal mischief and
harassment, which resulted in his placement at White’s. While at White’s,
C.M. amassed a lengthy and serious list of infractions in just three months. He
threatened harm to himself and others, caused property damage, broke
countless rules, spat on a law enforcement officer, and threw a snow-covered
rock at a staff member. As a result, White’s refused to allow C.M. to remain
there.
[11] It is apparent, therefore, that the early attempts at rehabilitation through less
restrictive means have been unsuccessful. Moreover, there is evidence in the
record that placement of C.M. in a less restrictive setting (especially in the care
of his mother, whom he has physically and emotionally tormented for years)
would risk harm to the community and to C.M. and would carry a low
likelihood of C.M. attending and complying with the treatment he so clearly
needs. Under these circumstances, we find that the juvenile court did not err by
ordering that C.M. be placed in the DOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 5 of 6
[12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-607 | August 14, 2020 Page 6 of 6