D.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
47A05-1705-JV-945
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Fifteen-year-old D.J. admitted battery against his mother after an August 2016 incident; the State dismissed an accompanying interference charge and charged battery (Class A misdemeanor if adult).
- D.J. had a history of mental-health placements and diagnoses (mood disorder, later conduct disorder and unspecified bipolar-related disorder) and prior juvenile delinquency matters.
- Lawrence County Probation and a psychological evaluation recommended supervised probation through the Lawrence County Juvenile Problem Solving Court (JPSC) to provide intensive mental-health services; no residential placement was available.
- At dispositional hearings, both parents expressed reluctance or refusal to comply with core JPSC requirements (random drug screens, residence searches, parental participation in counseling); father lived out of county and had limited availability to transport D.J.; mother said program participation would jeopardize her job.
- The juvenile court found the parents’ noncompliance likely and concluded that placing D.J. in JPSC would set him up to fail; the court ordered D.J. made a ward of the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) to secure needed services and education.
- On appeal D.J. argued the court abused its discretion by choosing DOC over the less restrictive JPSC option; the court affirmed, applying the statutory preference for least-restrictive placements but recognizing exceptions where a more restrictive placement better serves the child’s best interest and community safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by placing D.J. in DOC rather than ordering supervised probation through JPSC | D.J.: JPSC is the least-restrictive, appropriate placement; DOC is unnecessary and more restrictive | State: Parents unwilling/unable to comply with JPSC requirements, so JPSC would fail; DOC provides needed services and is in D.J.’s best interest | Court: No abuse of discretion; credible parental testimony and other evidence supported DOC placement as necessary for child’s rehabilitation and best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard: juvenile dispositional decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Gado v. State, 882 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court credibility determinations afforded substantial weight on appeal)
- Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (discusses appellate deference to trial-court factfinding and credibility assessments)
- K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizes that least-restrictive-placement policy yields when a more restrictive placement better serves the child’s interests)