Massa, J.
….
J.D.M. was charged with being a delinquent child for committing child molestation which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a Class C felony. … The juvenile court ordered placement of J.D.M. at the Wernle Youth and Family Treatment Center, and for Wernle to perform a comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation of J.D.M. … On November 2, 2012, Lisa Day of the Fayette Probation Department filed her Pre-Disposition Report (“PDR”), which reviewed Wernle’s Diagnostic Evaluation, and “request[ed] that youth be placed into the Sexually Maladaptive Program at the Wernle Youth and Family Treatment Center.” The PDR did not contain a recommendation that J.D.M. be placed on probation.
J.D.M. subsequently admitted to the allegations, and was adjudicated a delinquent. The juvenile court continued his placement at Wernle pending a formal dispositional hearing …
The accompanying dispositional order “approve[d] of the probation officer’s recommendation in the PDR” and continued placement at Wernle, without a formal entry that J.D.M. was on probation. …
….
As J.D.M.’s eighteenth birthday neared, the juvenile court expressed to the parties the need to hold a sex offender registration hearing. … Wernle provided a detailed report in advance of the hearing. The report noted the significant progress J.D.M. had made during his time at Wernle … Nevertheless, the report still found he had a “high risk of sexual recidivism” … The juvenile court took the matter under advisement, but did not rule on the registration requirement, finding that it should conduct another hearing on the matter 15 days prior to J.D.M.’s release from Wernle.
….
… On September 8, 2015, the juvenile court issued an order that required J.D.M. to register as a sex offender … The juvenile court set accompanying conditions of probation, including the registration requirement … J.D.M. appealed, and our Court of Appeals affirmed via memorandum decision. J.D.M. v. State, No. 21A01–1510–JV–1804, 2016 WL 2986962 (Ind. Ct. App. May 24, 2016). We hereby grant transfer and vacate the Court of Appeals decision below. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).
The Juvenile Court Could Not Order J.D.M. to Register as a Sex or Violent Offender Prior to His Discharge from Wernle.
The Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”), Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(a) (2016), requires a “sex or violent offender” to register for ten years, beginning when the offender: “(1) is released from a penal facility . . . or a secure juvenile detention facility . . . ; (2) is placed in a community transition program; (3) is placed in a community corrections program; (4) is placed on parole; or (5) is placed on probation.” … SORA imposes additional prerequisites for juvenile registration, which “implicitly recognizes, and attempts to balance, the tension between registration’s harsh effects and the juvenile system’s rehabilitative aims.” … Specifically, the juvenile court may order registration only if the child:
(A) is at least fourteen (14) years of age;
(B) is on probation, is on parole, is discharged from a facility by the department of correction, is discharged from a secure private facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-115), or is discharged from a juvenile detention facility as a result of an adjudication as a delinquent child for an act that would be an offense described in subsection (a) if committed by an adult; and
(C) is found by a court by clear and convincing evidence to be likely to repeat an act that would be an offense described in subsection (a) if committed by an adult.
Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5(b)(2).
This Court has previously interpreted subsection (C) in detail. In J.C.C. v. State, we held that the juvenile court was required “to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the juvenile is likely to be a repeat sex offender.” … J.C.C. further emphasized that “[w]hen a juvenile is placed in . . . a secure private facility . . . , the sex offender registry hearing cannot be held until after the juvenile is released from the facility. …
….
… J.D.M. challenges the registration order under subsection (B), claiming he was neither on probation nor had he been released from a secure treatment facility. … We find J.D.M.’s argument persuasive, for several reasons.
First, at the dispositional hearing …, the issue of probation was extensively discussed, and at the probation department’s suggestion, the juvenile court stated “we’ll continue the placement at Wernle and we will address um, the conditions of probation and all that when you’re ready to be released from Wernle.” …
Second, the registration order itself made no express finding that J.D.M. was on probation, instead stating that J.D.M. “has remained in residential treatment/placement at Wernle from September 21, 2012 throughout the date of the sex offender registry hearing.” …
Third, the dispositional order stated that Wernle is a “non-secure facility,” and neither party appears to challenge that assessment. Thus by definition, even if J.D.M. had been released from Wernle, that would be insufficient by itself to satisfy Indiana Code section 11-8-8-5(b)(2)(B), since he would not have been “discharged from a secure private facility.”
Fourth, although his release from Wernle was “imminent” according to the State, J.D.M. remained at Wernle at the time of the second sex offender registry hearing, at the time the registration order was actually entered, and, indeed, through the time of briefing in this appeal. … Accordingly, we find that the juvenile court erred in conducting its sex offender registry hearings while J.D.M. remained at Wernle.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order requiring J.D.M. to register as a sex offender, and remand this matter to the juvenile court for proceedings consistent with this decision.
Rush, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Slaughter, JJ., concur.