MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] R.T. appeals his commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a juvenile-delinquency adjudication. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] R.T. was born in December 2009 and has struggled regulating his emotions and behaviors. At age seven, R.T. had a shunt put in his head to relieve pressure from a brain tumor. The tumor caused him to enter puberty early, which resulted in increased sexual behaviors.
[3] In October 2017, R.T., who lived with his mother, was found to be a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) based on neglect and physical abuse and was removed from his mother. From October 2017 to December 2018, R.T. had seven placements:
October 12-November 3, 2017: Wellstone
November 3-27, 2017: Foster care
November 27, 2017-January 12, 2018: Kinship care
January 12-February 9, 2018: Wellstone
March 2-16, 2018: Wellstone
June 6-October 19, 2018: Foster care
October 19-December 21, 2018: St. Josephs Carmelite Home
Appellants App. Vol. III p. 17. In December 2018, R.T. was placed at Damar. There, he was diagnosed with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Hydrocephalus, and Major Neurocognitive Disorder. He was discharged in June 2019 and placed with his paternal grandmother.
[4] The CHINS case was closed in 2020, and R.T. was returned to his mother. R.T.’s father later sought custody due to “ongoing physical abuse” of R.T. by his mother. Id. at 12. R.T.’s father received full custody of R.T. in August 2021. Since then, R.T. has lived with his father or paternal grandmother.
[5] Between June 2022 and March 24, 2023, R.T. had seven juvenile referrals. On March 31, R.T., then thirteen, received his eighth referral for an incident occurring the prior month. That is, on February 26, R.T. stole his paternal grandmothers car. A police officer located R.T. and was able to box him in; however, R.T. backed into the officers car. The officer approached R.T. with his gun drawn and ordered him out of the car. R.T. resisted the officer and spat in his face. The State filed a petition alleging that R.T. was a delinquent child for committing what would be Level 6 felony battery by bodily waste, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 03C01-2304-JD-1837.
[6] On June 25, while the delinquency petition was pending, R.T. was taken into custody for allegations that he had punched his father and stolen money from his sister (no formal charges were filed). R.T. was placed in shelter placement at the Bartholomew County Youth Services Center (YSC).
[7] On July 24, R.T. was taken into custody for leaving YSC without permission. Upon return to YSC, he became angry and damaged chairs and a table. R.T. was then placed in secure detention at YSC. The State filed a petition alleging that R.T. was a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult for damaging YSCs property. See Cause No. 03C01-2307-JD-3905.
[8] In August, R.T. admitted to leaving the scene of an accident in Cause No. 1837 and criminal mischief in Cause No. 3905. The trial court found him to be a delinquent child and sent him to Damar for a diagnostic evaluation pending the dispositional hearing.
[9] On October 5, the probation department filed a Request for Immediate Placement asking that R.T. be transferred from Damar to secure detention at YSC. While at Damar, R.T. had escaped several times, attacked a peer and staff member, and engaged in self-harming behaviors. The trial court ordered R.T. to return to secure detention at YSC. While there, R.T. continued to act aggressively and engage in self-harming behaviors.
[10] The dispositional hearing in Cause Nos. 1837 and 3905 was held on October 18. The trial court ordered a suspended commitment to the DOC and placed R.T. on probation for 364 days. Later that day, R.T. threw a chair at a YSC staff member, injuring their knee and elbow. The next day, the probation department filed an Emergency Petition for Modification of Dispositional Decree asking that R.T. be committed to the DOC. The trial court ordered R.T. to be temporarily sent to the DOC for “safe keeping” pending resolution of the petition to modify. Tr. p. 20. The court said that if R.T. was not accepted by the DOC for safe keeping, then he should be sent to another countys detention center. R.T. was ultimately sent to the Allen County Juvenile Center.
[11] In late October, the State filed a petition alleging that R.T. was a delinquent child for committing what would be Level 6 felony battery against a public-safety official if committed by an adult for battering the YSC staff member. See Cause No. 03C01-2310-JD-5498. R.T. admitted to the offense, and the trial court scheduled a combined hearing for the disposition modification in Cause Nos. 1837 and 3905 and the disposition in Cause No. 5498. R.T. remained at the Allen County Juvenile Center.
[12] The combined hearing was held in November. The probation department testified that R.T. had been offered many services, from community-based services to residential placement to secure detention. Community-based services, however, were no longer an option due to safety concerns. In addition, the probation department had contacted several residential facilities that were equipped to address R.T.’s “intellectual and developmental disabilities”—Damar, TC Harris, Child Place, Oaklawn, and Gibault—but they all had denied him admission. Tr. p. 55. As a result, the probation department received permission to seek out-of-state placement for R.T. at Youth Villages in Tennessee, but it hadnt heard back yet (he was later denied). The probation department believed that R.T. should be placed at the DOC because it was “able to provide the most comprehensive level of care for [him] and his needs,” including mental-health services. Id. at 56. The probation department proposed that R.T. be committed to the DOC in Cause No. 5498 but that the trial court keep open Cause Nos. 1837 and 3905 so it could “continue to provide services and support to the family” for R.T.’s eventual return home. Id. at 57.
[13] The trial court issued an order finding that R.T. could not follow the rules at home, at Damar, in shelter care at YSC, or in secure detention at YSC and that he had engaged in aggressive, violent, destructive, and self-harming behaviors in many of the placements, some of which resulted in delinquency adjudications. The court also found that although “[t]he most intensive services available to [R.T.] have been offered and ordered,” they were not “successful in reducing the amount of danger that [he] poses to himself or the community.” Appellants App. Vol. III p. 45. Concluding that R.T. needed “extensive supervision to keep himself safe and to keep others safe” and “access to more extensive mental health services,” the court ordered him to be placed in the DOC in Cause No. 5498. Id. The court agreed with the probation departments recommendation for the other two cases and continued him on probation. See id. at 47.
1
[14] R.T. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[15] R.T. contends the trial court should not have placed him in the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the trial court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The courts discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:
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.
The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.
[16] R.T. argues the trial court should have ordered a less restrictive placement, such as his fathers home. But as the court pointed out, less restrictive options have been tried—some more than once—with no success. Since the age of seven, R.T. has cycled through various in-home placements, residential placements, shelter care, and secure detention and has continued to engage in aggressive, violent, destructive, and self-harming behaviors—even in the most secure placement. The probation department testified that the only option left to keep R.T. and others safe is the DOC, which could provide him with the mental-health services that he needs. R.T. points out that he committed one offense during a three-month period when he didnt receive one of his medications for aggression. But the court addressed this, finding that R.T. was aggressive before, during, and after the disruption in his medication. The trial court acted well within its discretion by placing R.T. in the DOC.
2
[17] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In February 2024, the trial court “closed” R.T.’s probation in these two cases “unsuccessfully” because his family was not utilizing the services offered. See Cause Nos. 1837, 3905 (Feb. 28, 2024).
2
. In February 2024, the DOC filed a report with the trial court stating that if R.T. continued progressing, he would be released from the DOC on June 10, 2024. See Cause No. 5498 (Feb. 2, 2024).
Vaidik, Judge.
May, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.