Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A teen’s placement in the Department of Correction for a “relatively minor” juvenile offense was erroneous, the Court of Appeals has ruled, finding a juvenile court did not sufficiently explore less restrictive options.
On Q.H.’s first day at an alternative special education school that he was referred to due to his behavior, he violated the cellphone policy and was removed from the classroom. The 13-year-old spent the next 90 minutes in the hallway pacing, arguing, yelling, throwing chairs and tearing posters from the wall.
Q.H. also cursed and threatened to kill a school staff member and eventually picked up a metal filing tray and swung it at other school staff, including a school security officer. The officer subdued Q.H. and took him to St. Joseph County’s juvenile detention center.
Q.H.’s unemployed mother and several brothers were homeless at the time, and the homeless shelter allowed them to sleep at the facility at night but required them to go elsewhere during the day. His mother could not be located before an emergency detention hearing, so the hearing proceeded without her or Q.H.’s father.
The incident was Q.H.’s first time with the juvenile justice system, and his counsel conceded that continued detention was merited because neither of his parents could take custody of him. After finding probable cause to believe Q.H. committed the alleged acts, the juvenile court ordered him to remain at the juvenile detention center.
The state then petitioned to adjudicate Q.H. as a delinquent for acts that if committed by an adult would be Level 6 felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, battery and criminal recklessness.
A week later at a hearing on the allegations, Q.H. admitted to committing acts of intimidation and battery, and in exchange the state agreed to drop the disorderly conduct and criminal recklessness allegations.
While at the juvenile detention center, Q.H.’s behavior led to 35 incident reports. The reports were mostly threats to hurt himself and others, disrespectful behavior toward detention center staff, failure to follow directions, and clogging the toilet with his clothes. The incidents led to security officers restraining him while he resisted.
At the dispositional hearing, the probation department recommended that Q.H. be committed to the Department of Correction due to his behavior in the juvenile detention center. The St. Joseph Probate Court agreed and committed him to the DOC.
Q.H. argued in his appeal that the juvenile court erred in committing him to the DOC because it was his first experience with the juvenile justice system and his misconduct was relatively minor. He also claimed the dispositional order was improper because the record reflects no investigation of less restrictive options, including residential placement.
The appellate court agreed that the juvenile court’s consideration of sanctions was inadequate.
“First, the pre-dispositional report on which the juvenile court relied did not meet statutory requirements. It failed to evaluate placement options within the context of Q.H.’s needs, including his cognitive and psychological challenges documented in his educational and detention center records,” Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote. “Second, when considering the appropriate sanction, the juvenile court adopted that defective pre-dispositional report and did not broaden its inquiry to include consideration of Q.H.’s cognitive and psychological difficulties. As a result, the trial court’s order committing Q.H. to the DOC did not incorporate the analysis required by Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6.”
The appellate court noted that a forensic clinician at the detention facility concluded that Q.H.’s behavior stemmed from “poor memory retention and lack of coping skills,” and that his threats were more out of frustration rather than genuine harm. An officer also noted that Q.H. “doesn’t know why he gets angry.”
“In other words, Q.H. was judged at the juvenile detention facility largely by his behavior alone, although his behavior seemingly had been linked to his cognitive and emotional difficulties,” Weissmann wrote. “Consistent with that behavior-focused approach, the pre-dispositional report recommended Q.H.’s commitment to DOC due to his poor behavior without considering his need for treatment for cognitive or emotional impairments. The pre-dispositional report therefore violated the applicable version of Indiana Code § 31-37-17-6.1(a)(2).”
The appellate court further found that the lack of investigation into Q.H.’s needs tainted the findings.
“The record does not support the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable efforts have been made to finalize a permanency plan for Q.H.,” Weissmann wrote. “The record shows that Q.H. had an emotional disability and intellectual challenges for which therapeutic care and treatment needs were uninvestigated. Under these circumstances, more was needed than a summary conclusion that a 13-year-old special education student navigating the juvenile justice system for the first time should be committed to the DOC.”
Finally, the COA found no evidence that the juvenile court considered how Q.H.’s unstable home may have affected his behavior and mental state.
Also, Q.H. learned of the department recommending his placement in the DOC the day of the rescheduled dispositional hearing and requested a continuance to allow for further investigation. However, the juvenile court denied the request and proceeded with the hearing.
“Given this record, the juvenile court could not reasonably determine under Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6 that commitment to the DOC was the least restrictive disposition consistent with Q.H.’s best interests and community safety,” Weissmann concluded. “We therefore conclude the court abused its discretion in committing Q.H. at the age of 13 to the DOC for his first and relatively minor juvenile offense. Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s commitment of Q.H. to the DOC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Judges Patricia Riley and Cale Bradford concurred in Q.H. v. State of Indiana, 23A-JV-326.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.