MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that E.D.R. had committed what would be Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury if committed by an adult. After a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated E.D.R. delinquent. The juvenile court ordered E.D.R. to be a ward of the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). E.D.R. claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed him to the DOC instead of another less-restrictive placement. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December of 2023, E.D.R. and a companion “ran up on” a man in Muncie and “jumped” him. Tr. Vol. II p. 16. E.D.R. and his companion “stomped” on the man and “punch[ed] and kick[ed] him” while he lay on the ground outside of his home. Tr. Vol. II p. 17; Appellants App. Vol. II p. 70. After hearing the commotion, the mans girlfriend ran outside and struck E.D.R. in the head with a frying pan and put him in a headlock. The girlfriends cousin came outside wielding a sword, and E.D.R. and his companion ran to a car that had been waiting for them. Witnesses provided police with E.D.R.’s name.
[3] After officers arrested E.D.R., the State alleged that he had committed battery resulting in bodily injury (a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult), and the juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent. At a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court noted that E.D.R.’s criminal history includes the following: In 2021, E.D.R. was placed on informal adjustment for battery resulting in bodily injury. Just three months after that, a new case was opened against E.D.R. for theft. In April of 2022, E.D.R. was adjudicated delinquent for auto theft and, just a few weeks after that adjudication, admitted to committing robbery and escape. In August of 2022, the juvenile court placed E.D.R. in residential treatment at DePaul Academy, from which he was discharged in August of 2023. In September of 2023, while E.D.R. was on probation, the State alleged that he had committed battery resulting in bodily injury.
[4] Moreover, at the time of the dispositional hearing “there [were] concerns that [E.D.R.] did not even reside” with his placement, his aunt Angel Clark, and instead was residing with his girlfriend. Tr. Vol. II p. 46. E.D.R. had received a referral for home-based case services through Firefly; however, E.D.R. had “missed two of three total sessions allowed to be missed before closing for non[-]compliance.” Appellants App. Vol. II p. 23. Additionally, E.D.R. had had “36 tardies total” and, “due to missing assignments and attendance[,]” he had “failing grades in English 10-1, Health[ ], Geometry, and English 11-1.” Appellants App. Vol. II p. 22. In short, the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) reported that E.D.R. “was uncooperative with probation services[,]” he “continues to engage in aggressive and/or violent behavior[,]” and his “actions pose [a] danger to [him]self and others.” Appellants App. Vol. II p. 84.
[5] At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court “adopt[ed] probations recommendation” and found “that all rehabilitative remedies and options have been exhausted.” Tr. Vol. II p. 58. The juvenile court ordered E.D.R. to be committed to the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
[6] E.D.R. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him to be committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile delinquent is committed to the juvenile courts sound discretion, “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.” E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. A juvenile courts disposition will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. A juvenile court abuses its discretion only if its action is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id.
[7] The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child; however, that discretion is circumscribed by statute. R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 provides that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that [․] is [․] in the least restrictive [․] and most appropriate setting available[.]” Id. Although the statute requires that the juvenile court select the least-restrictive placement in most situations, it recognizes that in certain situations the best interests of the child are better served by a more restrictive placement. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
[8] E.D.R. has not established that the juvenile court abused its discretion in concluding that his interests would be best served by a more restrictive placement in the DOC. In August of 2021, the juvenile court placed E.D.R. on informal adjustment, which proved to be unsuccessful when, just a few months later, E.D.R. was charged with theft. Moreover, in 2022, the juvenile court adjudicated E.D.R. delinquent for auto theft, robbery, and escape and placed him in residential placement at DePaul Academy.
[9] Further, upon his release from DePaul Academy, E.D.R. did not complete his required therapy and, less than two months after he had been discharged, was alleged to have committed battery resulting in bodily injury. Additionally, by the time of the dispositional hearing, E.D.R. had already missed two homebased case work meetings, and missing a third would result in his removal from the program a second time. In short, “[p]robation has utilized all disposition alternatives” for E.D.R., “including informal adjustment, electronic home detention, formal probation, individual therapy, detention three times, residential program at DePaul, [․] emergency shelter, [and] homebased case work twice[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 45. These alternatives have proved unsuccessful in reforming E.D.R., and he continues to engage in criminal activity; therefore, Probation Officer Briana Massey testified that “probation does recommend that [E.D.R.] be committed to” the DOC. Tr. Vol. II p. 45.
[10] We conclude that E.D.R.’s placement in the DOC is “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child[.]” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. Given the failure of less-restrictive options and the juvenile courts broad discretion in determining the disposition of a delinquent child, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing E.D.R. to the DOC. E.H., 764 N.E.2d at 684.
[11] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Bradford
Judges Crone and Tavitas concur.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.