Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
S M v. State of Indiana
Date: 05-18-2021
Case Number: 21A-JV-00017
Judge: Paul D. Mathias
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented a delinquent child charged with auto theft, and domestic battery.
S.M. was born prematurely and addicted to cocaine due to her biological
mother's drug use during pregnancy. She was removed from her mother's care
at birth and placed into foster care. When S.M. was six-months old, she was
placed in foster care with the parents who later adopted her. Sadly, they too
neglected her. And when S.M. was thirteen years old, her parents told her,
during an argument, that she was adopted and that her biological mother was a
crack addict.
[4] Thereafter, thirteen-year-old S.M.'s behavior worsened, culminating in an
attempted knife attack on her sister. S.M. stated she intended to kill her sister.
She was also physically aggressive toward her parents. S.M. underwent a
psychological evaluation as a result of her referral to the juvenile court and was
diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 3 of 10
evaluator concluded that S.M. was dangerous to herself and to others, and
admitted S.M. to a residential treatment facility.
[5] S.M. struggled in her placements. She physically assaulted facility staff and her
peers. As a result, she was placed in three different residential facilities over a
three-year period. Due to S.M.'s lack of progress and her physically destructive
behavior, she was committed to the DOC in June 2019. She was released in
January 2020, and she participated in Transition from Restrictive Placement
services through June.
[6] At that point, seventeen-year-old S.M. returned to her parents' home. In July,
however, S.M. physically assaulted her mother and threatened her with a knife.
Both law enforcement officers and the Department of Child Services ("DCSâ€)
investigated the incident. DCS expressed concern that S.M. had suffered
neglect. As a result of this incident, the State filed a delinquency petition in
Marion Superior Court alleging that S.M. had committed domestic battery, a
Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Initially, S.M. remained in
juvenile detention, but in August, the court authorized her supervised release
under the care of DCS. S.M. was placed in a foster home in South Bend,
Indiana. S.M. was angry that she was moved to South Bend.
[7] On September 14, S.M. met with two social workers at her foster home in
South Bend. S.M. physically assaulted both social workers. She then stole one
of the social worker's car keys, ran out of the house, and drove off in the social
worker's vehicle. S.M. later abandoned the car. When it was recovered, the car Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 4 of 10
had both front-end and interior damage. Following this incident, the State filed
a delinquency petition in St. Joseph Superior Court alleging that S.M.
committed auto theft, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and that she
left home without her guardian or custodian's permission.
[8] On September 27, S.M. turned herself in to law enforcement in Indianapolis.
She took Xanax without a prescription prior to doing so. S.M. appeared
intoxicated and was transported to a hospital. She was subsequently placed in a
juvenile detention center where she was not compliant with the staff. During
her detention, she "incurred seven incidents of disciplinary isolation.â€
Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 123.
1
[9] On October 26, the Marion Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing on the
domestic battery allegation and entered a true finding for domestic battery. On
November 9, the St. Joseph Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing, and
S.M. admitted that she committed auto theft and that she left her foster home
without permission. The St. Joseph Superior Court agreed to transfer its case to
Marion Superior Court for disposition. And, on December 8, the Marion
Superior Court held a consolidated dispositional hearing.
1
S.M. filed two separate appeals in this case resulting two briefs and two appendices before the appeals were
consolidated. Therefore, the briefs and appendices are identified by the appellate case numbers they were
originally filed under: 21A-JV-17 (the Marion County delinquency petition) and 21A-JV-28 (the St. Joseph
County delinquency petition).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 5 of 10
[10] At the hearing, S.M.'s parents indicated that they did not want S.M. returned to
their home, and S.M. stated that she did not want to live in her parents' home.
S.M. argued for placement with Gail Logan and the Logan family,2 but the
State argued that S.M. should be made a ward of the DOC, as recommended by
the probation department and the psychological evaluator. The State noted
S.M.'s prior unsuccessful placements in residential treatment facilities and her
refusal to participate in home-based therapy. S.M. has historically refused to
take medications prescribed to treat her mental illness. The placement board
observed that S.M. "is harmful to herself and others due to her aggressive
behavior. Sending youth to residential placement is not an option as youth is
adamant she will act out and attack staff/others. Thus resulting in placement
failure.†Id. at 172.
[11] Dr. Jim Dalton, a child psychologist, assigned a primary diagnosis to S.M. of
severe disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Dr. Dalton believed that S.M.
"remains at high risk to the community†with "limited options to provide her
assistance and safety[.]†Id. at 166. And S.M. "needs to be in a situation where
her mental health is monitored and her risk of violence toward the community
is minimized.†Id. at 168. Dr. Dalton concluded, "[w]hile DOC is not typically
considered a preferred choice for youth with similar profiles, it may be [S.M.'s]
2 Evidence concerning S.M.'s relationship to Logan and her family is not included in the record on appeal.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 6 of 10
only chance to gain the minimal skills necessary to be safe for the next years of
her life.†Id.
[12] On December 9, the Marion Superior Court issued its dispositional decree in
both cases. The court awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC "for housing
in any correctional facility for children until the age of 21, unless sooner
released by the†DOC. Id. at 18; Appellant's App. JV-28, p. 17. And the court
recommended a commitment period of twelve months. S.M. appealed the
dispositional order in both cases. On S.M.'s motion, our court consolidated the
cases for the purposes of this appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[13] S.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding
guardianship over her to the DOC because the commitment "does not comport
with the goal of rehabilitation, it is not in S.M.'s best interest, and it is not the
least restrictive alternative.†Appellant's Br. JV-17 at 10–11, Appellant's Br. JV28 at 12. We do not agree.
[14] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to
the trial court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's
welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.
J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We
review the trial court's dispositions and modifications thereof for an abuse of
discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 7 of 10
the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom. Id.
[15] Juvenile court proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. Id.. "[T]he goal of
the juvenile court process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a
criminal as an adult.†Id. at 1175–76 (quoting R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). As such, juvenile courts have a variety of placement
choices. Id. And a juvenile court has wide latitude and flexibility in its dealings
with juveniles. See J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[16] The juvenile court's discretion is subject to the following statutory
considerations:
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
child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the
child's parent, guardian, or custodian.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 8 of 10
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. The statute generally requires the juvenile court select
the least restrictive placement, but in certain circumstances, a more restrictive
placement might be appropriate. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002), trans. denied. Specifically, a more restrictive placement is
appropriate when it serves both the child's best interests and the safety of the
community. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see also,
I.C. § 31-37-18-6.
[17] S.M.'s juvenile referrals began when she was thirteen-years old. In the years
leading up to delinquency adjudications at issue here, S.M. was placed in three
residential facilities and the DOC. Unfortunately, the placements were not
successful and S.M. continued to commit criminal offenses. She committed
domestic battery when she physically assaulted her mother and threatened her
with a knife. And S.M. committed auto theft when, after physically assaulting
two social workers, she stole one of the social workers' car.
[18] Sadly, S.M. "entered the world experiencing significant biological and social
deficits . . . . While there have been some minor improvements as she has aged,
there has been few signs of emotional and behavioral stability for this girl over
time.†Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 165. S.M. continues to demonstrate risky
behaviors and "has consistently reacted aggressively and engaged in behaviors
that are dangerous toward others.†Id. Dr. Dalton believes that S.M. is a high
risk to the community and herself. Id. at 166. Dr. Dalton concluded that if S.M.
"were released to any community setting before her 18th birthday or even many
months after her 18th birthday, she would have a high chance of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 9 of 10
reacting/responding with behaviors that would cause harm to another person
and could result in her being harmed and/or incarcerated.†Id. at 168. He also
concluded that S.M. "needs to be in a situation where her mental health is
monitored and her risk of violence toward the community is minimized.†Id.
[19] S.M.'s parents do not want her returned to their care. And the probation
department determined that "[t]here is not a residential placement program that
would accept [S.M.] for care due to her history of violence and her age.†Id. at
173. S.M. proposed placement with Gail Logan and her family, but the only
evidence in the record concerning this placement option was that Logan's work
schedule would allow her to supervise S.M. for most periods of time when S.M.
was not in school. There was no evidence that Logan would be able to meet
S.M.'s specialized needs.
[20] Tragically, given S.M.'s history of violence and her need for supervision and
treatment, the juvenile court was left with only one option: awarding
guardianship of S.M. to the DOC. The State presented evidence that this was
S.M.'s sole remaining chance for rehabilitation, the only feasible placement
option available, and in S.M.'s best interests.
Outcome:
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC.
[22] Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of S M v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC.
[22] Affirmed
Which court heard S M v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Paul D. Mathias.
Who were the attorneys in S M v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was S M v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 18, 2021.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
S.M. was born prematurely and addicted to cocaine due to her biological
mother's drug use during pregnancy. She was removed from her mother's care
at birth and placed into foster care. When S.M. was six-months old, she was
placed in foster care with the parents who later adopted her. Sadly, they too
neglected her. And when S.M. was thirteen years old, her parents told her,
during an argument, that she was adopted and that her biological mother was a
crack addict.
[4] Thereafter, thirteen-year-old S.M.'s behavior worsened, culminating in an
attempted knife attack on her sister. S.M. stated she intended to kill her sister.
She was also physically aggressive toward her parents. S.M. underwent a
psychological evaluation as a result of her referral to the juvenile court and was
diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 3 of 10
evaluator concluded that S.M. was dangerous to herself and to others, and
admitted S.M. to a residential treatment facility.
[5] S.M. struggled in her placements. She physically assaulted facility staff and her
peers. As a result, she was placed in three different residential facilities over a
three-year period. Due to S.M.'s lack of progress and her physically destructive
behavior, she was committed to the DOC in June 2019. She was released in
January 2020, and she participated in Transition from Restrictive Placement
services through June.
[6] At that point, seventeen-year-old S.M. returned to her parents' home. In July,
however, S.M. physically assaulted her mother and threatened her with a knife.
Both law enforcement officers and the Department of Child Services ("DCSâ€)
investigated the incident. DCS expressed concern that S.M. had suffered
neglect. As a result of this incident, the State filed a delinquency petition in
Marion Superior Court alleging that S.M. had committed domestic battery, a
Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Initially, S.M. remained in
juvenile detention, but in August, the court authorized her supervised release
under the care of DCS. S.M. was placed in a foster home in South Bend,
Indiana. S.M. was angry that she was moved to South Bend.
[7] On September 14, S.M. met with two social workers at her foster home in
South Bend. S.M. physically assaulted both social workers. She then stole one
of the social worker's car keys, ran out of the house, and drove off in the social
worker's vehicle. S.M. later abandoned the car. When it was recovered, the car Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 4 of 10
had both front-end and interior damage. Following this incident, the State filed
a delinquency petition in St. Joseph Superior Court alleging that S.M.
committed auto theft, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and that she
left home without her guardian or custodian's permission.
[8] On September 27, S.M. turned herself in to law enforcement in Indianapolis.
She took Xanax without a prescription prior to doing so. S.M. appeared
intoxicated and was transported to a hospital. She was subsequently placed in a
juvenile detention center where she was not compliant with the staff. During
her detention, she "incurred seven incidents of disciplinary isolation.â€
Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 123.
1
[9] On October 26, the Marion Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing on the
domestic battery allegation and entered a true finding for domestic battery. On
November 9, the St. Joseph Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing, and
S.M. admitted that she committed auto theft and that she left her foster home
without permission. The St. Joseph Superior Court agreed to transfer its case to
Marion Superior Court for disposition. And, on December 8, the Marion
Superior Court held a consolidated dispositional hearing.
1
S.M. filed two separate appeals in this case resulting two briefs and two appendices before the appeals were
consolidated. Therefore, the briefs and appendices are identified by the appellate case numbers they were
originally filed under: 21A-JV-17 (the Marion County delinquency petition) and 21A-JV-28 (the St. Joseph
County delinquency petition).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 5 of 10
[10] At the hearing, S.M.'s parents indicated that they did not want S.M. returned to
their home, and S.M. stated that she did not want to live in her parents' home.
S.M. argued for placement with Gail Logan and the Logan family,2 but the
State argued that S.M. should be made a ward of the DOC, as recommended by
the probation department and the psychological evaluator. The State noted
S.M.'s prior unsuccessful placements in residential treatment facilities and her
refusal to participate in home-based therapy. S.M. has historically refused to
take medications prescribed to treat her mental illness. The placement board
observed that S.M. "is harmful to herself and others due to her aggressive
behavior. Sending youth to residential placement is not an option as youth is
adamant she will act out and attack staff/others. Thus resulting in placement
failure.†Id. at 172.
[11] Dr. Jim Dalton, a child psychologist, assigned a primary diagnosis to S.M. of
severe disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Dr. Dalton believed that S.M.
"remains at high risk to the community†with "limited options to provide her
assistance and safety[.]†Id. at 166. And S.M. "needs to be in a situation where
her mental health is monitored and her risk of violence toward the community
is minimized.†Id. at 168. Dr. Dalton concluded, "[w]hile DOC is not typically
considered a preferred choice for youth with similar profiles, it may be [S.M.'s]
2 Evidence concerning S.M.'s relationship to Logan and her family is not included in the record on appeal.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 6 of 10
only chance to gain the minimal skills necessary to be safe for the next years of
her life.†Id.
[12] On December 9, the Marion Superior Court issued its dispositional decree in
both cases. The court awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC "for housing
in any correctional facility for children until the age of 21, unless sooner
released by the†DOC. Id. at 18; Appellant's App. JV-28, p. 17. And the court
recommended a commitment period of twelve months. S.M. appealed the
dispositional order in both cases. On S.M.'s motion, our court consolidated the
cases for the purposes of this appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[13] S.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding
guardianship over her to the DOC because the commitment "does not comport
with the goal of rehabilitation, it is not in S.M.'s best interest, and it is not the
least restrictive alternative.†Appellant's Br. JV-17 at 10–11, Appellant's Br. JV28 at 12. We do not agree.
[14] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to
the trial court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's
welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.
J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We
review the trial court's dispositions and modifications thereof for an abuse of
discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 7 of 10
the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom. Id.
[15] Juvenile court proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. Id.. "[T]he goal of
the juvenile court process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a
criminal as an adult.†Id. at 1175–76 (quoting R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). As such, juvenile courts have a variety of placement
choices. Id. And a juvenile court has wide latitude and flexibility in its dealings
with juveniles. See J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[16] The juvenile court's discretion is subject to the following statutory
considerations:
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
child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the
child's parent, guardian, or custodian.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 8 of 10
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. The statute generally requires the juvenile court select
the least restrictive placement, but in certain circumstances, a more restrictive
placement might be appropriate. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002), trans. denied. Specifically, a more restrictive placement is
appropriate when it serves both the child's best interests and the safety of the
community. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see also,
I.C. § 31-37-18-6.
[17] S.M.'s juvenile referrals began when she was thirteen-years old. In the years
leading up to delinquency adjudications at issue here, S.M. was placed in three
residential facilities and the DOC. Unfortunately, the placements were not
successful and S.M. continued to commit criminal offenses. She committed
domestic battery when she physically assaulted her mother and threatened her
with a knife. And S.M. committed auto theft when, after physically assaulting
two social workers, she stole one of the social workers' car.
[18] Sadly, S.M. "entered the world experiencing significant biological and social
deficits . . . . While there have been some minor improvements as she has aged,
there has been few signs of emotional and behavioral stability for this girl over
time.†Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 165. S.M. continues to demonstrate risky
behaviors and "has consistently reacted aggressively and engaged in behaviors
that are dangerous toward others.†Id. Dr. Dalton believes that S.M. is a high
risk to the community and herself. Id. at 166. Dr. Dalton concluded that if S.M.
"were released to any community setting before her 18th birthday or even many
months after her 18th birthday, she would have a high chance of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 9 of 10
reacting/responding with behaviors that would cause harm to another person
and could result in her being harmed and/or incarcerated.†Id. at 168. He also
concluded that S.M. "needs to be in a situation where her mental health is
monitored and her risk of violence toward the community is minimized.†Id.
[19] S.M.'s parents do not want her returned to their care. And the probation
department determined that "[t]here is not a residential placement program that
would accept [S.M.] for care due to her history of violence and her age.†Id. at
173. S.M. proposed placement with Gail Logan and her family, but the only
evidence in the record concerning this placement option was that Logan's work
schedule would allow her to supervise S.M. for most periods of time when S.M.
was not in school. There was no evidence that Logan would be able to meet
S.M.'s specialized needs.
[20] Tragically, given S.M.'s history of violence and her need for supervision and
treatment, the juvenile court was left with only one option: awarding
guardianship of S.M. to the DOC. The State presented evidence that this was
S.M.'s sole remaining chance for rehabilitation, the only feasible placement
option available, and in S.M.'s best interests.
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented a delinquent child charged with auto theft, and domestic battery.
S.M. was born prematurely and addicted to cocaine due to her biological
mother's drug use during pregnancy. She was removed from her mother's care
at birth and placed into foster care. When S.M. was six-months old, she was
placed in foster care with the parents who later adopted her. Sadly, they too
neglected her. And when S.M. was thirteen years old, her parents told her,
during an argument, that she was adopted and that her biological mother was a
crack addict.
[4] Thereafter, thirteen-year-old S.M.'s behavior worsened, culminating in an
attempted knife attack on her sister. S.M. stated she intended to kill her sister.
She was also physically aggressive toward her parents. S.M. underwent a
psychological evaluation as a result of her referral to the juvenile court and was
diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Features. The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 3 of 10
evaluator concluded that S.M. was dangerous to herself and to others, and
admitted S.M. to a residential treatment facility.
[5] S.M. struggled in her placements. She physically assaulted facility staff and her
peers. As a result, she was placed in three different residential facilities over a
three-year period. Due to S.M.'s lack of progress and her physically destructive
behavior, she was committed to the DOC in June 2019. She was released in
January 2020, and she participated in Transition from Restrictive Placement
services through June.
[6] At that point, seventeen-year-old S.M. returned to her parents' home. In July,
however, S.M. physically assaulted her mother and threatened her with a knife.
Both law enforcement officers and the Department of Child Services ("DCSâ€)
investigated the incident. DCS expressed concern that S.M. had suffered
neglect. As a result of this incident, the State filed a delinquency petition in
Marion Superior Court alleging that S.M. had committed domestic battery, a
Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Initially, S.M. remained in
juvenile detention, but in August, the court authorized her supervised release
under the care of DCS. S.M. was placed in a foster home in South Bend,
Indiana. S.M. was angry that she was moved to South Bend.
[7] On September 14, S.M. met with two social workers at her foster home in
South Bend. S.M. physically assaulted both social workers. She then stole one
of the social worker's car keys, ran out of the house, and drove off in the social
worker's vehicle. S.M. later abandoned the car. When it was recovered, the car Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 4 of 10
had both front-end and interior damage. Following this incident, the State filed
a delinquency petition in St. Joseph Superior Court alleging that S.M.
committed auto theft, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and that she
left home without her guardian or custodian's permission.
[8] On September 27, S.M. turned herself in to law enforcement in Indianapolis.
She took Xanax without a prescription prior to doing so. S.M. appeared
intoxicated and was transported to a hospital. She was subsequently placed in a
juvenile detention center where she was not compliant with the staff. During
her detention, she "incurred seven incidents of disciplinary isolation.â€
Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 123.
1
[9] On October 26, the Marion Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing on the
domestic battery allegation and entered a true finding for domestic battery. On
November 9, the St. Joseph Superior Court held a fact-finding hearing, and
S.M. admitted that she committed auto theft and that she left her foster home
without permission. The St. Joseph Superior Court agreed to transfer its case to
Marion Superior Court for disposition. And, on December 8, the Marion
Superior Court held a consolidated dispositional hearing.
1
S.M. filed two separate appeals in this case resulting two briefs and two appendices before the appeals were
consolidated. Therefore, the briefs and appendices are identified by the appellate case numbers they were
originally filed under: 21A-JV-17 (the Marion County delinquency petition) and 21A-JV-28 (the St. Joseph
County delinquency petition).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 5 of 10
[10] At the hearing, S.M.'s parents indicated that they did not want S.M. returned to
their home, and S.M. stated that she did not want to live in her parents' home.
S.M. argued for placement with Gail Logan and the Logan family,2 but the
State argued that S.M. should be made a ward of the DOC, as recommended by
the probation department and the psychological evaluator. The State noted
S.M.'s prior unsuccessful placements in residential treatment facilities and her
refusal to participate in home-based therapy. S.M. has historically refused to
take medications prescribed to treat her mental illness. The placement board
observed that S.M. "is harmful to herself and others due to her aggressive
behavior. Sending youth to residential placement is not an option as youth is
adamant she will act out and attack staff/others. Thus resulting in placement
failure.†Id. at 172.
[11] Dr. Jim Dalton, a child psychologist, assigned a primary diagnosis to S.M. of
severe disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Dr. Dalton believed that S.M.
"remains at high risk to the community†with "limited options to provide her
assistance and safety[.]†Id. at 166. And S.M. "needs to be in a situation where
her mental health is monitored and her risk of violence toward the community
is minimized.†Id. at 168. Dr. Dalton concluded, "[w]hile DOC is not typically
considered a preferred choice for youth with similar profiles, it may be [S.M.'s]
2 Evidence concerning S.M.'s relationship to Logan and her family is not included in the record on appeal.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 6 of 10
only chance to gain the minimal skills necessary to be safe for the next years of
her life.†Id.
[12] On December 9, the Marion Superior Court issued its dispositional decree in
both cases. The court awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC "for housing
in any correctional facility for children until the age of 21, unless sooner
released by the†DOC. Id. at 18; Appellant's App. JV-28, p. 17. And the court
recommended a commitment period of twelve months. S.M. appealed the
dispositional order in both cases. On S.M.'s motion, our court consolidated the
cases for the purposes of this appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[13] S.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding
guardianship over her to the DOC because the commitment "does not comport
with the goal of rehabilitation, it is not in S.M.'s best interest, and it is not the
least restrictive alternative.†Appellant's Br. JV-17 at 10–11, Appellant's Br. JV28 at 12. We do not agree.
[14] The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to
the trial court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's
welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.
J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. We
review the trial court's dispositions and modifications thereof for an abuse of
discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 7 of 10
the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom. Id.
[15] Juvenile court proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. Id.. "[T]he goal of
the juvenile court process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a
criminal as an adult.†Id. at 1175–76 (quoting R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). As such, juvenile courts have a variety of placement
choices. Id. And a juvenile court has wide latitude and flexibility in its dealings
with juveniles. See J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[16] The juvenile court's discretion is subject to the following statutory
considerations:
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
child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the
child's parent, guardian, or custodian.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 8 of 10
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. The statute generally requires the juvenile court select
the least restrictive placement, but in certain circumstances, a more restrictive
placement might be appropriate. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 386–87 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002), trans. denied. Specifically, a more restrictive placement is
appropriate when it serves both the child's best interests and the safety of the
community. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see also,
I.C. § 31-37-18-6.
[17] S.M.'s juvenile referrals began when she was thirteen-years old. In the years
leading up to delinquency adjudications at issue here, S.M. was placed in three
residential facilities and the DOC. Unfortunately, the placements were not
successful and S.M. continued to commit criminal offenses. She committed
domestic battery when she physically assaulted her mother and threatened her
with a knife. And S.M. committed auto theft when, after physically assaulting
two social workers, she stole one of the social workers' car.
[18] Sadly, S.M. "entered the world experiencing significant biological and social
deficits . . . . While there have been some minor improvements as she has aged,
there has been few signs of emotional and behavioral stability for this girl over
time.†Appellant's App. JV-17, p. 165. S.M. continues to demonstrate risky
behaviors and "has consistently reacted aggressively and engaged in behaviors
that are dangerous toward others.†Id. Dr. Dalton believes that S.M. is a high
risk to the community and herself. Id. at 166. Dr. Dalton concluded that if S.M.
"were released to any community setting before her 18th birthday or even many
months after her 18th birthday, she would have a high chance of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-17| May 17, 2021 Page 9 of 10
reacting/responding with behaviors that would cause harm to another person
and could result in her being harmed and/or incarcerated.†Id. at 168. He also
concluded that S.M. "needs to be in a situation where her mental health is
monitored and her risk of violence toward the community is minimized.†Id.
[19] S.M.'s parents do not want her returned to their care. And the probation
department determined that "[t]here is not a residential placement program that
would accept [S.M.] for care due to her history of violence and her age.†Id. at
173. S.M. proposed placement with Gail Logan and her family, but the only
evidence in the record concerning this placement option was that Logan's work
schedule would allow her to supervise S.M. for most periods of time when S.M.
was not in school. There was no evidence that Logan would be able to meet
S.M.'s specialized needs.
[20] Tragically, given S.M.'s history of violence and her need for supervision and
treatment, the juvenile court was left with only one option: awarding
guardianship of S.M. to the DOC. The State presented evidence that this was
S.M.'s sole remaining chance for rehabilitation, the only feasible placement
option available, and in S.M.'s best interests.
Outcome:
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC.
[22] Affirmed
discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC.
[22] Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of S M v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded guardianship of S.M. to the DOC. [22] Affirmed
Which court heard S M v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Paul D. Mathias.
Who were the attorneys in S M v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Josiah Swinney Deputy Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was S M v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 18, 2021.