In re D.M., 45A05-0905-JV-239
5th Dist., 06-10-09, Ind.App. 907 N.E.2d 582
Attorney: Elizabeth G. Tegarden
Holding: In expedited interlocutory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 14.1, Indiana Department of Child Services (IDCS) challenged trial court’s modified dispositional order placing D.M., a juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent, in an out-of-state shelter care facility against the recommendation of IDCS. Court affirmed trial court’s finding that IDCS’s recommendation to place D.M. in Indiana residential treatment facility was “unreasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and/or are contrary to the welfare or the best interests of the child.” I.C. 31-37-19-3 provides that a trial court may not place a delinquent child in a home or facility that is not a secure detention facility and is located outside Indiana unless court makes written findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the “out-of-state placement is appropriate because there is not a comparable facility with adequate services located in Indiana….”
Here, clear and convincing evidence supported trial court’s findings that: 1) Nevada facility offers vocational, educational and athletic services more compatible to meet D.M.’s needs; 2) facility offers family counseling through satellite conferences which is needed for success and progress of D.M. D.M.’s probation officer testified that IDCS’s placement recommendation was more expensive and not comparable to Nevada’s facility. D.M. and his mother both testified that they preferred Nevada facility, as they felt it would better address D.M.’s academic and athletic needs. IDCS failed to specifically identify how trial court’s findings lack supporting evidence, or how these findings, in turn, do not support trial court’s ultimate decision to place D.M. in Nevada facility. Held, judgment affirmed.
