ILNews

Judges affirm juvenile placement in DOC

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was sympathetic to a teen’s request to not be placed in the Department of Correction, but it noted that all other remedies for his rehabilitation had been exhausted in his home county.
 
In J.J. v. State of Indiana, No. 47A01-0911-JV-557, J.J. appealed the juvenile court’s order that he be committed to the Indiana Boys School, a part of the DOC. J.J. has been in and out of trouble for several years and struggled with mental health problems, drug abuse, and anger management.

“J.J. has been given every chance to work to solve his problems and comply with the rule of law, but he has continued to reoffend,” wrote Chief Judge John Baker. “In just a few short years, J.J. exhausted every rehabilitative program offered by Lawrence County, and is left with no option other than the Department of Correction.”

J.J. argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion because his prior offenses had been “minor,” he had a history of mental health issues, and a history of drug abuse that he claimed he hadn’t received treatment for.

“Although we sympathize with this argument and certainly acknowledge that J.J. is a troubled individual who is grappling with a number of significant problems, we place great weight on the juvenile court’s conclusion that ‘the Lawrence County Juvenile Probation has exhausted what means they have for rehabilitation for [J.J.] …,’” wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court also reversed the juvenile court’s finding of delinquency for committing what would be Class D felony resisting law enforcement had it been committed by an adult in one of his cases. The juvenile referee failed to submit findings for the juvenile court’s review on the matter, as required by Indiana Code Section 31-31-3-6(2). The referee made no findings of fact on the charge and merely completed a boilerplate form stating J.J. committed resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony.

“The juvenile court should be able to read the recommended order drafted by the referee, glean all relevant facts therefrom, and come to an informed decision about whether or not to adopt the referee’s recommendations,” wrote Chief Judge Baker.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT