ILNews

Court upholds juvenile placement with DOC

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld placing a juvenile with the Indiana Department of Correction over his objections that there was a less restrictive alternative available. The judges found the minor’s instant adjudications, behavior while in detention, and history of inappropriate sexual conduct justified placing him with the DOC.

In 2009, R.H. stole a pair of sunglasses and on another occasion grabbed a classmate’s breast. He was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor battery and Class A misdemeanor conversion if committed by an adult. He was held in custody until a December hearing, during which he had many disciplinary problems. After his hearing, he removed his ankle monitor and left his house. He also was detained several times while on electronic monitoring.

R.H. believed he should have been placed in a less restrictive facility instead of put in the custody of the DOC, but the appellate court found his placement to be justified. Chief Judge John Baker in R.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-1003-JV-206, said R.H. “has certainly exhibited behaviors of a very troubled young man” and noted his attempts to skip school, the windows he broke at home out of anger, his behavior problems while he was in detention, substance abuse, and his history of inappropriate sexual conduct. He claimed to have been a victim of molestation, and to have had sexual contact with his four-year-old cousin as well as his brother and half-brother.

Chief Judge Baker also noted that his parents are “at best merely enablers and at worst complacent in their son’s inappropriate and unlawful behavior.” His father didn’t see anything wrong with grabbing the student’s breast and believed it was “accepted” behavior and his mother became so angry with school officials about the incident that she withdrew R.H. from school.

R.H. also argued because he was a victim of molestation, he should not have been placed in the Pendleton Juvenile Correction Facility, which was listed in a Department of Justice report as one of the 13 juvenile facilities in the country that had a high sexual victimization rate.

“While the Report tends to indicate that Pendleton has issues with sexual victimization of the juveniles who are detained there, it fails to establish that the juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding guardianship of R.H. to the DOC. To be sure, it is the DOC, rather than the juvenile court, which determined where R.H. would be placed,” wrote the chief judge.

In a footnote, Chief Judge Baker wrote “We do not intend for our conclusion to imply that victimization in a juvenile facility could never be grounds to challenge placement in that facility. We recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals who are confined by the State from being held in unsafe conditions. … However, R.H. does not allege that he has been victimized or threatened, and as stated above, it is the DOC, not the juvenile court, that is responsible for his placement. Moreover, it is our hope that the Executive Department is as concerned with this unchallenged revelation as we are.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT