937 N.E.2d 386
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- RH., fourteen, was adjudicated delinquent on JD-647 for a theft act and on JD-673 for battery-type conduct following school-based sexual incidents.
- He was released to electronic monitoring after adjudications but repeatedly absconded and returned to custody with numerous discipline issues.
- A psychosexual-psychological assessment revealed multiple inappropriate sexual behaviors, including acts with his four-year-old cousin and other intimate misconduct.
- On March 23, 2010, the juvenile court awarded guardianship of RH. to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for assignment to a Boys' School, relying in part on probation department input.
- RH. argues there was a less restrictive placement available; the DOC placement proceeded despite concerns about rehabilitative versus punitive aims.
- On appeal, RH. contends special circumstances exist and less restrictive alternatives under Indiana law should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the DOC guardianship a permissible least-restrictive disposition? | RH. argues less restrictive options exist. | RH. emphasizes rehabilitation and least restraint; court should justify DOC. | No abuse; DOC placement justified by circumstances. |
| Did the juvenile court properly apply Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 to favor least restrictive setting? | RH. asserts required least restrictive setting unless safety or best interest demand otherwise. | Court may exceed least restrictive when rehabilitative needs warrant more restrictive placement. | Discretion upheld; placement consistent with safety and best interests. |
| Are D.P. v. State and E.H. analogous, requiring vacatur of the disposition? | RH. relies on D.P. and E.H. to show special circumstances and need for less restrictive options. | Those decisions are distinguishable; here multiple factors support DOC. | Not controlling; distinctions and evidence support DOC. |
| Did the report on sexual victimization at Pendleton undermine the placement? | Report suggests risk, arguing placement should avoid sexual victimization. | DOC controls placement; report does not show abuse of discretion by juvenile court. | Report does not invalidate DOC placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.P. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (special circumstances; least harsh disposition principle)
- H.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (less restrictive options; Dawn Project/foster care relevance)
- E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (special circumstances and rehabilitative focus)
- K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (best interests and least restrictive approaches)
- Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 1987) (juvenile process aims; rehabilitation over punishment)
- W.C.B. v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (victimization considerations in juvenile facilities)