RH v. State
937 N.E.2d 386
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Fourteen-year-old R.H. stole sunglasses at K-Mart and was apprehended in August 2009.
- In October 2009, R.H. made inappropriate sexual statements to I.R. and grabbed her breast; later harassed another female student on video.
- R.H. was adjudicated delinquent in JD-673 for battery-type conduct and released with electronic monitoring, then absconded and was returned to custody.
- In December 2009, R.H. admitted the JD-647 allegations; he remained in custody and received numerous incident reports while detained.
- Psychosexual assessment in February 2010 revealed multiple inappropriate sexual behaviors with relatives and others; reports included possible forced acts and prior molestation.
- On March 23, 2010, the juvenile court ordered guardianship of R.H. to the DOC for placement at a Boys’ School, relying partly on probation recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC placement was an abuse of discretion under 31-37-18-6 | R.H. argues less restrictive residential treatment was available and appropriate. | DOC placement justified by two adjudications, conduct in detention/EO monitoring, sexual history, and family neglect. | No abuse; DOC placement justified. |
| Whether D.P. and E.H. require vacating the disposition | R.H. cites these decisions to argue for vacating in favor of less restrictive options. | Those cases are distinguishable; facts support DOC for R.H. | Not controlling; facts support DOC. |
| Whether victimization report undermines placement | Pendleton victimization report suggests safer placement away from victimization risk at secure facilities. | DOC determines placement; report does not prove abuse of discretion by juvenile court. | Report does not undermine the DIJ’s order; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.P. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (less restrictive alternatives considered; special circumstances weighed)
- E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (rehabilitation-focused placement; home-based services considered)
- K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (best interest may justify more restrictive placement)
- Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 1987) (juvenile process aims at rehabilitation, not punishment)