May, J.
S.S. appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay restitution. S.S. presents two issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive – whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered him to pay restitution after it determined he did not have the ability to pay restitution. We reverse.
On February 2, 2016, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging S.S. committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 3 felony burglary and Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury, based on his taking a cell phone from M.H. On March 22, S.S. entered into an admission agreement with the State, agreeing to adjudication for an act that would be Class A misdemeanor theft, which is a lesser included offense of Level 3 felony burglary. The State moved to dismiss the Level 3 felony robbery allegation, and the juvenile court granted that motion. As part of the admission agreement, S.S. agreed to make “[r]estitution for the LG4 Cell Phone, documentation and valuation to be determined [sic] disposition or restitution hearing.”
On April 19, 2016, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. The juvenile court accepted the admission agreement and discussed restitution. …
… The juvenile court then allowed S.S. to make “a brief record as to restitution,” and presented testimony S.S. was fifteen years old, lived with his mother, did not have a job, did not have a bank or savings account, and did not own property. S.S. then asked the juvenile court to “make a finding of inability to pay.”
The juvenile court entered its dispositional order the same day. It ordered S.S. to: “1. Complete 40 hours of restitution work program . . . 4. Pay to the Clerk $200.00 restitution to be withdrawn by [A.H.].”
The juvenile court also noted: “[S.S.’s counsel] requests that the youth be found indigent as he does not have [t]he ability to pay restitution. Court notes same. Court authorizes the release of youth’s documents to the victim for civil litigation.”
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-37-19-5(b)(4), a juvenile court may order a child to pay restitution if the victim provides reasonable evidence of loss, which evidence the child may challenge at the dispositional hearing. … It is well-established “equal protection and fundamental fairness concerns require that a juvenile court must inquire into a juvenile’s ability to pay before the court can order restitution as a condition of probation.” M.L. v. State, 838 N.E.2d 525, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
Here, S.S. made a record regarding his ability to pay wherein he testified he was fifteen years old, did not have a job, did not have a bank account or savings, and lived with his mother. The juvenile court stated in its dispositional order, “[S.S.’s counsel] requests that the youth be found indigent as he does not have [t]he ability to pay restitution. …
The juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered S.S. to pay restitution after it found S.S. did not have the ability to pay restitution. We accordingly vacate the portion of the dispositional order dealing with the payment of restitution.
Reversed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.