D.R., Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Sep 30 2008, 9:58 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM S. FRANKEL Wilkinson, Goeller, Modesitt, Wilkinson & Drummy, LLP Terre Haute, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE M. SCHUSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA D.R., Jr., Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 84A05-0804-JV-233 APPEAL FROM THE VIGO CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Christopher Gambill, Judge Pro Tempore Cause No. 84C01-0706-JD-485 September 30, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION NAJAM, Judge STATEMENT OF THE CASE D.R. appeals from his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing Child Molesting, as a Class B felony, and Child Molesting, as a Class C felony, when committed by an adult. He presents a single dispositive issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court erred when it did not make a finding concerning the need for participation by D.R. s parent in the plan of care for D.R. We affirm, but remand with instruction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2007, the State filed a petition against D.R. alleging his delinquency for two counts of child molesting. Following a factfinding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated D.R. a delinquent child and ordered him committed to the Indiana Boys School. This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION D.R. contends that the juvenile court erred when it did not enter findings and conclusions in accordance with Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-9. In particular, D.R. asserts that the juvenile court did not make a finding or conclusion concerning the need for participation by D.R. s parent in the plan of care for D.R. We must agree. Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-9 provides: The juvenile court shall accompany the court s dispositional decree with written findings and conclusions upon the record concerning the following: (1) The needs of the child for care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement. (2) The need for participation by the parent, guardian, or custodian in the plan of care for the child. 2 (3) The court s reasons for the disposition. (Emphasis added). Here, the juvenile court entered findings and conclusions, but did not make any finding or conclusion regarding the need for participation by D.R. s parent(s) in the plan of care for D.R. The dispositional order is incomplete. Accordingly, we remand and instruct the juvenile court to amend the order to include a finding and conclusion addressing this statutory requirement. Affirmed, but remanded with instruction. ROBB, J., and MAY, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
