MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary and Issue
[1] L.S. was adjudicated a delinquent child after admitting to several allegations of delinquent behavior in two cases. L.S. appeals the juvenile courts dispositional order making him a ward of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) rather than placing him in a less-restrictive alternative. He raises one issue on appeal: whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed him with the DOC. Concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In June 2021, L.S. was thirteen years old
1
and living with his adoptive parents. In the early morning hours of June 21, L.S. took his mothers vehicle without her permission and drove around Gibson County for about an hour. When L.S.’s mother confronted him about it the next morning, he pushed her, knocking her glasses off and causing her to injure her wrist. L.S. was detained and placed in the custody of the Southwest Indiana Regional Youth Village (“Youth Village”).
2
He tested positive for marijuana when he was detained. The State filed a petition alleging L.S. was a delinquent child for committing conversion and domestic battery, Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult, and driving without a license, a Class C misdemeanor if committed by an adult. After an initial hearing, L.S. was released to his parents with the condition that he comply with all the rules of his household.
[3] In July, L.S. ran away from home on at least two occasions, violating the terms of his release. After a pickup order was issued on July 20, L.S. turned himself in and was taken to the Youth Village. He tested positive for marijuana at that time. At a detention hearing on July 21, L.S.’s mother reported that L.S. was disrespectful and “keeps running away and damaging the house,” and she did not want him to come home at that time. Transcript, Volume 2 at 43. The juvenile court ordered L.S.’s continued detention at the Youth Village. At a pre-trial conference on August 13, L.S.’s mother reported L.S.’s attitude had improved, and she thought he had “done real well by maintaining to stay out of” a lot of the bad behavior at the Youth Village. Id. at 52. She was trying to get L.S. into counseling, and she was willing for him to be released to her custody. The juvenile court noted L.S.’s behavior report was “not bad” and released L.S. to his parents. Id.
[4] Sometime after his release, L.S. told his family, “I need help and I want it now.” Id. at 72. The family contacted several programs but was unsuccessful in getting emergency mental health treatment for L.S. Then, on August 30 and 31, L.S. broke into a car wash; stole a car, a firearm, and an iPod from three separate people; operated the stolen car on the highway; fled from police twice, including once on foot after wrecking the stolen car; and was in possession of a lookalike substance and tobacco when he was finally taken into custody. L.S. was initially spotted by police as he drove the stolen car at 88 mph. A passenger in the car told police that when police activated their emergency lights, L.S. “floored the gas peddle [sic] on the vehicle to try to get away[.]” Appellants Appendix, Volume II at 77. Police observed the car come upon railroad tracks, after which it “went airborne[,] then ran off the roadway, crashing into a fence and utility pole.” Id. at 79. An officer at the scene reported that he “does not know how anyone walked out of that vehicle. He expected ․ dead people inside that vehicle when he walked up[.]” Tr., Vol. 2 at 87. But L.S. and his passenger were able to flee the wreckage on foot with police in pursuit. When L.S. and his passenger were found, L.S. was taken into custody and returned to the Youth Village. He tested positive for marijuana when he was detained.
[5] The State filed a second delinquency petition alleging L.S. had committed the following acts: burglary, a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult; theft of a motor vehicle, theft of a firearm, and resisting law enforcement, all Level 6 felonies if committed by an adult; theft and resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult; driving without a license and possession of a lookalike substance, both Class C misdemeanors if committed by an adult; and possession of tobacco by a minor, a Class C infraction. At the initial hearing on this petition, the juvenile court noted that in addition to the allegations of the delinquency petition, the behavior report from the Youth Village showed that just two days prior, L.S. had run “into the girls’ unit, started flipping tables, [and threw] a chair.” Id. at 86. The juvenile court ordered L.S.’s continued detention at the Youth Village.
[6] At the fact-finding hearing on September 29, L.S. admitted to all the allegations in both cases against him. The juvenile court, counsel, and L.S.’s mother discussed the unsuccessful efforts they had made to obtain mental health treatment for L.S. The juvenile court set disposition out for forty-five days so those efforts could continue. The juvenile court noted that L.S. had more than four incidents on his most recent behavior report and reminded L.S. that “[w]here you are ultimately placed or the ultimate disposition, okay, is a factor of your behavior.” Id. at 116. The juvenile court told L.S. to “prove to me that [you] dont need the most strict form of rehabilitation in the State of Indiana” by behaving at the Youth Village prior to disposition. Id. at 120-21.
[7] When interviewed by the probation department for the pre-dispositional report, L.S. indicated that he had many close friends but that most of them were in their twenties, many of them have been in trouble, and some of them are associated with gangs. Although L.S. denied being in a gang, he “believed that there were some good things about gangs as they could be ‘family.’ ” Appellants App., Vol. II at 123. L.S. stated his family is very important to him, yet he acknowledged that he does not follow his parents’ authority because they do not follow through with consequences. The probation officer noted that L.S. “does not identify high risk situations [and] does not consider the pros and cons of a situation[.]” Id. Probation also noted that L.S.’s actions pose a danger to himself and others and his parents seem “unable to provide the necessary supervision needed for his protection and the protection of the community.” Id. at 124.
[8] The parties returned to court on November 5, 2021, for a dispositional hearing. The State noted that L.S. continued to have writeups and incidents at the Youth Village. The behavior report showed five incident reports in October alone, including committing battery on another youth just a week before the dispositional hearing. The State recommended, “for the protection of the community, and ․ for the protection of [L.S.] himself, ․ a more serious environment than hes even in right now. So we think that Boys’ School is ․ really the only option that really can deal with [him] and the issues he has at this point.” Tr., Vol. 2 at 127. The probation department also recommended commitment to the Indiana Boys’ School. L.S. told the juvenile court, “My anger is something I really do need to work on, because when I get to a point when Im mad, I just see black, and I cant control what I do. I cant control what I say.” Id. at 129. L.S.’s counsel requested that he “be placed in some type of structured mental health facility ․ that would have more therapy than Boys’ School.” Id. at 127.
[9] The juvenile court determined, “[a]fter considering ․ all four corners of this case and the nature of the charges [and] the behavior while detained ․ that the best option, in fact, well, the only best option to rehabilitate [L.S.] is the Boys’ School.” Id. at 129. Accordingly, the juvenile court adjudicated L.S. a delinquent child, awarded wardship of him to the DOC, and recommended a mental health evaluation immediately upon placement and anger management and substance abuse counseling. See Appealed Order at 2-3. L.S. now appeals the juvenile courts dispositional order.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[10] The juvenile court is accorded “wide latitude and great flexibility in dealing with juveniles[.]” C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. The specific disposition of a delinquent child is within the juvenile courts discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006). We reverse only for an abuse of discretion, that is, if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the juvenile court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Id.
II. Disposition
[11] L.S. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DOC because that disposition does not serve the goal of rehabilitation, is not in his best interest, and is not the least restrictive alternative. Rather, L.S. posits that commitment to an appropriate mental health facility would meet all of these criteria. See Brief of Appellant at 16-17.
[12] The goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, not punishment. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Once a child is determined to be a delinquent child, the juvenile court must hold a dispositional hearing to, among other things, consider the alternatives for the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-1. For a juvenile determined to be delinquent for committing an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult, see Ind. Code ch. 31-37-1, the juvenile court has the choice of several dispositions, such as supervision of the child by the probation department, outpatient treatment, confinement in a juvenile detention facility, placement in a shelter care facility, or wardship to the DOC, Ind. Code § 31-37-19-5(b). The juvenile courts discretion in crafting a disposition is “subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the communitys safety, and the Indiana Codes policy of favoring the least harsh disposition.” C.T.S., 781 N.E.2d at 1202 (quotation omitted). Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 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 childs parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the childs parent, guardian, or custodian.
Although Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6(1)(A) requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement in most circumstances, it also allows leeway for a more restrictive placement when appropriate. See J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). That is, the least restrictive placement is only required if it is “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child[.]” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.
[13] It is well settled that “there are 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the evidence establishes that less restrictive rehabilitative efforts failed to produce positive changes in L.S.’s behavior. Each time L.S. appeared in court, the juvenile court spoke to him at length about rehabilitation being the goal of our juvenile justice system. See Tr., Vol. 2 at 11, 33, 85, 104, 117. Each time, L.S. acknowledged that his behavior during these proceedings would determine what form that rehabilitation would ultimately take. And yet, L.S. failed to respond to the efforts of the juvenile court to assist in his rehabilitation through less restrictive means.
[14] When L.S. was released to his parents after the first allegation of delinquency, he was disrespectful to them, damaged their home by punching holes in the walls, ran away from home more than once, and tested positive for marijuana when he was picked up and taken to the Youth Village. After nearly a month in the Youth Village, L.S. had only a few minor incidents on his behavior report. His attitude had improved, and he had promised to “do better and whatever it takes to come home.” Id. at 52. His mother was willing to give him “a little bit of a chance to prove himself” and the juvenile court released him from the Youth Village after reminding him that “[e]yes are on you․ Discipline yourself.” Id. at 52-53, 55. But two weeks later, L.S. committed numerous new offenses, including several that would have been felonies if committed by an adult. He stole from community members, including stealing a firearm; endangered himself and others by driving on county roads without a license at fourteen years of age; and got into a “pretty serious wreck” with a passenger in the car when he tried to escape police. Id. at 71. Upon returning to the Youth Village, he had multiple incidents on his behavior report, including a serious incident involving violence against other individuals in the Youth Village just a week before his dispositional hearing.
[15] L.S.’s continued and escalating bad behavior after his initial involvement with the juvenile justice system, his disrespect of his parents, and his utter disregard for laws and rules are compelling reasons supporting a more restrictive environment for him. His propensity to take vehicles and drive on public roads while only fourteen years old and his theft of a firearm are particularly alarming when coupled with the probation departments observation that L.S. does not identify situations as high risk and does not consider the pros and cons of his actions. We acknowledge that L.S.’s parents, his counsel, the juvenile court, and L.S. himself believe he needs a mental health assessment and possibly some form of mental health treatment but were unsuccessful in obtaining that for him prior to disposition. The juvenile court considered those needs when it included in the dispositional order that L.S. be provided the mental health and substance abuse treatment he needed but was not getting in other less restrictive environments. Therefore, the juvenile courts determination that the least restrictive placement consistent with the safety of the community and L.S.’s best interests was placement in the DOC is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.
Conclusion
[16] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding wardship of L.S. to the DOC. The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
[17] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. L.S. turned fourteen in July 2021.
2
. The Youth Village provides residential treatment and continuing educational services.
Robb, Judge.
Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.