I M v. State of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 1 of 7
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value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
I.M.,
Appellant-Defendant
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
October 21, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-JV-1199
Appeal from the Jennings Circuit Court
The Honorable James Humphrey, Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
40C01-2511-JD-11
Memorandum Decision by Judge Brown
Judges Kenworthy and Scheele concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 2 of 7
Brown, Judge.
[1] 	I.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing her to the Department of
Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] 	On November 21, 2025, the State filed a petition alleging I.M. was a delinquent
child for committing an act which if committed by an adult would constitute
possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. On December 12, 2025, the
court entered a Dispositional Decree finding that I.M. admitted that she
committed the act as alleged. The court awarded wardship of I.M. to the DOC
for housing in the Indiana Girls School or any correctional facility for children
determined appropriate by the DOC and suspended the commitment to juvenile
probation for a period of twelve months. The court ordered that the conditions
of probation include that I.M. attend school every day unless she has a written
excuse, and that she obey all laws, consent to reasonable searches, and pay
court costs.
[3] 	On February 19, 2026, the State filed a Petition for Revocation of Probation
alleging that I.M. violated her probation, was arrested on February 16, 2026, for
battery on both of her parents, and there was a risk of I.M. fleeing the
jurisdiction or causing harm to others because she was a recent runaway. On
March 12, 2026, the court held a hearing, entered an order finding that I.M.
admitted to the allegations, and scheduled a dispositional hearing.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 3 of 7
[4] 	On March 26, 2026, the court held a dispositional hearing. Probation Officer
Merri Eder testified and recommended that I.M. be admitted to the Indiana
Girls School through the DOC because of her behavior and the incident in the
parents’ home during which I.M. battered her mother. Probation Officer Eder
indicated that she had reached out to the five facilities in Indiana that conduct
diagnostic evaluations and all of the facilities denied the evaluation “based off
[I.M.’s] behavior.” Transcript Volume II at 8. When asked, “with that in mind
then, the scenario appears for us today basically a choice between girl’s school
and mom and dad’s home,” she answered, “That’s correct.” Id. She testified
that “we’ve continued to struggle with manipulative behavior between [I.M.]
and her mother,” “recently, [I.M.] has displayed some frustration and
manipulative behavior with myself as her probation officer,” and I.M. also
“received an incident report while in detention on March 18th for her behavior
while in detention, being very vocal, cussing,” and “not following the rules of
staff.” Id. On cross-examination, Probation Officer Eder indicated that “there
was some reference to a diagnosis of bipolar in [I.M.’s] records,” but she did
not think “that’s ever been a formal diagnosis.” Id. at 10.
[5] 	I.M.’s mother testified that I.M. had told her that she (I.M.’s mother) deserved
to be hit. She testified that she did not feel comfortable with I.M. returning
home and that “[t]his last time she hit me, ran away, and was gone for three
hours.” Id. at 14. She also stated, “I’m not just in fear for the safety of what
could happen in my home between me, my husband, and her, but I'm worried
about her 10-year-old brother who feels that he has to lock himself in his room

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 4 of 7
when she is home.” Id. On redirect examination, when asked how many times
police had been called to her home when I.M. was home, she answered, “Too
many to count.” Id. at 16. I.M.’s mother also mentioned I.M. stealing and
attempting to overdose.
[6] 	Upon questioning by the court, I.M.’s mother indicated that I.M. had “acute
stays” where she made remarks about feeling unsafe in the home or feeling
suicidal and that, “[i]n addition to those acute stays, she’s done a six-month
residential at St. Vincent Anderson and in the last year has done two
residentials at Indiana Center for Recovery.” Id. at 17. I.M.’s mother also
testified that, prior to being placed on probation, I.M. had been expelled from
school after being caught with a nicotine vape and a THC vape, she was “in a
dark place mentally,” and she grabbed a knife “and tried splitting her wrists.”
Id. at 18. I.M.’s father testified that, “[a]s much as I want to say I want [I.M.]
to come home, I think girl’s school would be the better option. . . . my main
concern being her brother in our house.” Id. at 20.
[7] 	On March 31, 2026, the court entered an order awarding wardship of I.M. to
the DOC for housing in any correctional facility for children or any
community-based correctional facility for children. The court noted that I.M.
had eight “acute stays,” she had two placements, one of which failed, violence
and “continued conflict” in the home, and “concerns expressed by the parents.”
Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 80. On April 7, 2026, the court entered an
amended order finding that I.M. needed protection, her continued behavioral
issues required that she be placed for her protection and the protection of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 5 of 7
others, reasonable efforts had been made by the probation department to
prevent or eliminate the need for I.M.’s removal, and reasonable efforts were
made by the probation department or other service providers including
approximately eight prior acute placements, two prior residential placements,
and one prior placement resulting in removal.
[8] 	On April 15, 2026, I.M. filed a Motion to Correct Errors alleging that the
court’s order was excessive because it constituted severe punishment when a
less restrictive remedy could have been used. On April 27, 2026, the court
denied the motion.
Discussion
[9] 	I.M. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing her to
the DOC where there were less restrictive options available that would have
provided rehabilitative services. She asserts that she had only one juvenile
delinquency finding, she felt her overall stay in the juvenile detention center
went well, she was completing her schoolwork, and she had been restored to
the highest conduct level for good behavior. Without citation to authority, she
argues that, “[w]hile her behavioral struggles at home and suspected bipolar
symptoms present genuine challenges, these are mental health and behavioral
needs requiring structured therapeutic intervention – not incarceration in a state
penal facility.” Appellant’s Brief at 12.
[10] 	The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the
disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind. Ct.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 6 of 7
App. 2012); see also K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
(applying abuse of discretion standard where juvenile challenged modification
of placement to DOC following her violation of terms of suspended
commitment), trans. denied. However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind.
Code § 31-37-18-6, which provides that, “[i]f consistent with the safety of the
community and the best interest of the child,” the juvenile court shall enter a
dispositional decree that is “in the least restrictive (most family like) and most
appropriate setting available” and “close to the parents’ home, consistent with
the best interest and special needs of the child”; least interferes with family
autonomy; is least disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the
freedom of the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and
provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child’s parent,
guardian, or custodian. Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and
most appropriate setting available applies only “[i]f consistent with the safety of
the community and the best interest of the child.” J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341,
346 (Ind. 2007) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6).
[11] 	The record reveals that I.M. admitted to being a delinquent child for
committing an act which if committed by an adult would constitute possession
of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor. After being placed on probation, I.M.
admitted to the allegations that she violated the conditions of her probation by
battering her parents and being a runaway. Probation Officer Eder
recommended that I.M. be admitted to the Indiana Girls School through the
DOC because of her behavior. Five facilities in Indiana refused to conduct a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-JV-1199 | October 21, 2026 	Page 7 of 7
diagnostic evaluation of I.M. due to her behavior. I.M. received an incident
report while in detention on March 18th for her behavior. I.M.’s parents both
believed that the Indiana Girls School was the better option than I.M. returning
home due to concerns for her younger brother’s safety. In light of the record,
we conclude that the court’s ordered placement is consistent with I.M.’s best
interests and the safety of the community. We find no abuse of discretion.
[12] 	For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s order.
[13] 	Affirmed.
Kenworthy, J., and Scheele, J., concur.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
R. Patrick Magrath
West Sixth Law, LLP
Madison, Indiana
Bradley K. Kage
North Vernon, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Caroline G. Templeton
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Rebekah D. Bennett
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana