Q A v. State of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 1 of 8
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not
take any action in reliance upon this memorandum decision until it is
certified.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Q. A.
Appellant-Respondent,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Petitioner
October 21, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-JV-1273
Appeal from the Spencer Circuit Court
The Honorable Jonathan A. Dartt, Judge
The Honorable Thomas R. Pulley, Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
74C01-2404-JD-120

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 2 of 8
Memorandum Decision by Judge Altice
Judges Bailey and Bradford concur.
Altice, Judge
Case Summary
[1] 	Q.A. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the Indiana
Department of Correction (DOC). Q.A. contends that the juvenile court
abused its discretion by making him a ward of the DOC because less restrictive
placement was available.
[2] 	We affirm.
Fact and Procedural History
[3] 	In November 2023, the State alleged twelve-year-old Q.A. to be a delinquent
child for committing domestic battery against his mother. Q.A. was placed on
probation, and the following month, Q.A. was again alleged to be a delinquent
child for battering his mother. Q.A. was placed in his father’s care and ordered
to participate in rehabilitative services.
[4] 	On May 1, 2024, the State filed another petition alleging that Q.A. was a
delinquent child for committing domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor,
battery as a Class B misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct as a Class B
misdemeanor. Q.A. denied the allegations and was placed at an inpatient

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 3 of 8
treatment facility in California. Q.A. was unsuccessfully discharged from that
facility in less than a month and was placed with his grandparents.
[5] 	In August 2024, Q.A.’s grandparents announced that they were no longer
willing to have Q.A. live with them because of his escalating aggressive
behavior. Q.A. was then returned to his mother’s care and placed on a wait list
for a residential treatment facility.
[6] 	Following adjudication of pending delinquency allegations, the juvenile court
ordered Q.A. to two years of reporting probation with instructions to follow
Family Preservation Services’ recommendations. Q.A. was also ordered to be
evaluated by Life Spring or a comparable program for substance abuse and/or
mental health treatment.
[7] 	In September 2024, Q.A. threatened to kill himself and he repeatedly kicked his
mother in the leg causing her pain. Q.A.’s mother contacted the police and the
State alleged that Q.A. was delinquent for committing domestic battery. Q.A.
was placed in detention until November 1, 2024, when he was again released to
his mother. In early December 2024, Q.A. threatened to shoot his mother
while pointing his finger at her in the shape of a gun. He also used her debit
card without permission.
[8] 	The State filed a notice of probation violation on December 5, 2024. At Q.A.’s
initial hearing, the juvenile court placed Q.A. at Youth Care Center (Youth
Care) in Evansville. Q.A. thereafter admitted violating probation by
committing domestic battery and failing to follow his mother’s lawful

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 4 of 8
commands. The juvenile court continued Q.A.’s probation and ordered him
placed at Childplace Family Services (Childplace). At a review hearing on
September 11, 2025, Q.A.’s case manager advised the juvenile court that Q.A.
continued to have behavioral issues, and because of those problems, no
discharge date from Childplace was set.
[9] 	On November 10, 2025, Q.A. possessed a sharpened stick and drank cologne at
Childplace because he believed that it would taste like alcohol. The following
day, Q.A. punched a resident in the face. A week later, Q.A. had to be
restrained from assaulting another resident. In December 2025, Q.A. was
suspended from school for possessing marijuana, and he was caught with vape
pens on several occasions. Q.A. also stopped participating in most of the
services required of his treatment program.
[10] 	The State filed a notice of probation violation on December 19, 2025, and Q.A.
subsequently admitted to violating probation by failing to complete residential
treatment program requirements. Q.A. admitted that he would “continue to
break the law.” Transcript at 23-24.
[11] 	At a dispositional hearing on April 16, 2026, Q.A.’s mother testified that she
wanted Q.A. to return home to her custody, yet she acknowledged that since
January 2024, Q.A. has had nine in-patient treatment stays in addition to court-
ordered residential treatment.
[12] 	On April 21, 2026, the juvenile court determined that Q.A. could not safely stay
at home and that there was at least an eight-week wait before he could be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 5 of 8
placed in a residential treatment facility. The juvenile court observed, however,
that there were more immediate treatment options for Q.A. through the DOC.
The juvenile court further noted that it was not safe for Q.A. to remain in the
community because he has failed to demonstrate that he would follow the rules
at home or at school. The juvenile court also found that Q.A. continued to
engage in delinquent and violent behavior while residing at residential facilities.
Thus, the juvenile court ordered Q.A. committed to the DOC.
[13] 	Q.A. now appeals. Additional information will be added as needed.
Discussion and Decision
[14] 	Q.A. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to
the DOC. A juvenile court generally enjoys “wide latitude and great flexibility”
in juvenile matters, and its placement decisions are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.
An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the
decision reflects a misapplication of the law. J.Q.R. v. State, 252 N.E.3d 919,
924 (Ind. 2025).
[15] 	The juvenile court’s discretion with placement decisions is regulated by statute.
R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). In placing a
delinquent child, the juvenile court must exercise its discretion within the
parameters of Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. This statute provides, among other
things, that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 6 of 8
interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that is
in the least restrictive . . . and most appropriate setting available; and . . .
imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child. . . .” Id.
[16] 	Although the juvenile court is required to select the least restrictive placement
that is appropriate, it is recognized that in certain situations “the best interest of
the child is better served by more restrictive placements.” M.M. v. State, 189
N.E.3d 1163, 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). And even if a less harsh option may
exist at the time of a juvenile’s disposition, commitment to a suitable public
institution might still be in the best interest of the juvenile and of society. D.S.
v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Placement in a DOC
facility is not a punishment; it ensures that the juvenile “receives, in a secure
environment, the extended rehabilitative counseling” that he needs. M.C. v.
State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. In short,
confinement “may be one of the most effective rehabilitative techniques
available” in some instances. K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002), trans. denied.
[17] 	In this case, Q.A.’s extensive involvement in the juvenile justice system began
when he was only twelve years old. He battered his mother and threatened her
on several different occasions. Q.A. was placed on probation many times and
he failed to comply with family preservation services.
[18] 	After Q.A. admitted to violating probation, the juvenile court ordered him to be
placed in residential treatment. 	Although Q.A. entered a treatment facility in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 7 of 8
California, he was unsuccessfully discharged from that facility in less than a
month because of his aggressive behavior. While at Childplace in Indiana,
Q.A. continued his violent and delinquent behavior and battered another
resident. He also had to be restrained from attacking a different resident with a
sharpened stick. Q.A. was also caught with vape pens multiple times while in
residential treatment, drank cologne, believing that it would taste like alcohol,
and was suspended from school for possessing marijuana.
[19] 	Q.A. also stopped participating in services and he failed to comply with the
requirements of his treatment program. Since January 2024, Q.A. had nine in-
patient treatment stays. Despite those interventions, Q.A.’s behavior continued
to escalate when less restrictive measures were in place. Q.A. admitted that he
struggled to control his behavior and that he would just “snap” on occasion.
Transcript at 35.
[20] 	Although Q.A. argues that he should have been returned to his mother’s
custody, the juvenile court considered that option and determined that
placement with his mother was not in Q.A.’s best interest because it was not
safe for him, his mother, or the community. The juvenile court further
observed that Q.A. failed to rectify his behavior during his placement in less
restrictive residential treatment facilities.
[21] 	The juvenile court also noted that Q.A. could not be placed in a residential
treatment facility for at least eight weeks, and that the DOC offered more
immediate treatment options to address Q.A.’s needs.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1273 | October 21, 2026 	Page 8 of 8
[22] 	In sum, the record reflects that the juvenile court thoroughly considered Q.A.’s
history and the previous attempts at rehabilitation prior to committing him to
the DOC, explaining that it had “exhausted . . . other options” and that
“continued detention is essential to protect the child and community.”
Transcript at 49. Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrated that extensive and
less restrictive rehabilitation efforts previously received by Q.A. were
unsuccessful, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
committing him to the DOC.
[23] 	Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Faith E. Alvarez
Alexis G. Sizemore
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Indiana Attorney General
Megan M. Smith
Assistant Section Chief, Capital and Habeas Litigation
Courtney L. Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana