Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana law didn’t back up a man’s contention that a trial court should expunge Indiana Department of Child Services records substantiating his molestation of his sisters, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Wednesday.
According to court records, from age 10 to 14, B.T. continuously molested his sisters, who were about three and five years younger than he was.
After one sister reported the molestations, B.T. was adjudicated as a delinquent for an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Class A felony child molesting. The juvenile court placed B.T. on probation, during which he repeatedly failed polygraph examinations designed to unveil his sexual history.
B.T. later acknowledged deceit but only for one of his failed examinations.
The terms of B.T.’s probation also included therapy. But B.T. did not successfully complete therapy before being discharged from probation and beginning college.
The revelation of the molestations also led to a parallel investigation by DCS.
As part of the investigation into whether B.T.’s sisters were children in need of services, DCS substantiated the allegations of child molesting.
B.T. graduated from college and obtained a teaching job at a high school, but the school fired him after a background check detected DCS’s substantiation.
Over the objection of both the prosecutor and DCS, B.T. petitioned to expunge the records of both his juvenile adjudication and DCS’s substantiation.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Elkhart Circuit Court expunged the juvenile adjudication, but not DCS’s substantiation. The court determined that B.T. had failed to prove the statutory requirements for expungement of DCS’s records.
B.T. appealed that judgment, arguing that Indiana’s expungement requirements should differ depending on whether the substantiated offense was committed by a child or by an adult.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
B.T. argued that the trial court erroneously applied Indiana Code § 31- 33-27-5, which governs expungement of DCS’s substantiation records.
In denying B.T.’s expungement petition as to those records, the trial court found insufficient evidence of the second statutory requirement, Weissmann wrote — that is, that the information has insufficient current probative value to justify its retention in DCS records for future reference.
According to Weissmann, B.T. did not challenge that specific conclusion.
Instead, he argued that the General Assembly must have intended a more lenient standard for expungement of offenses committed by a juvenile than those committed by an adult, given the greater rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system.
Weissmann wrote that the expungement statute is found within the juvenile code and, contrary to B.T.’s contention, specifically distinguishes between juvenile and adult perpetrators.
Specifically, when the expungement petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offense, the court may review “the factors listed in IC 31-39-8-3 in relation to the petitioner, if the substantiated report was the subject of a juvenile court case.” Those factors include the child’s age at the time of the offense, the child’s best interests and various other considerations specifically relating to the underlying juvenile proceeding.
According to Weissmann, the overlap between the expungement statute and I.C. 31-39-8-3 has ensured that the same factors considered in juvenile delinquency expungement proceedings also are considered in expungements of DCS-substantiated juvenile offenses. It also does not authorize those factors to be considered in proceedings under the expungement statute when the substantiated offense was committed by an adult.
“As the expungement statute already incorporates the very distinction between adult and juvenile offenses that B.T. advocates, B.T. offers no persuasive basis for reversing the trial court’s denial of his request to expunge the DCS records,” Weissmann concluded.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Dana Kenworthy concurred.
The case is B.T. v. State of Indiana, 23A-XP-636.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.