Tavitas, J.
F.A. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring F.A. and her mother to reimburse the costs of F.A.’s secure detention. We reverse and remand.
F.A. raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering F.A. and her mother to reimburse the costs of F.A.’s secure detention.
….
On appeal, F.A. makes no argument concerning the juvenile court’s imposition of the drug screen fee, the informal adjustment fee, the problem solving court fee, the home detention fees, the restitution, or the court costs. Rather, F.A.’s arguments pertain only to the secure detention costs. Accordingly, we will address only the juvenile court’s imposition of secure detention costs in the amount of $11,475.00.
F.A. argues: (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing secure detention costs without inquiring into F.A.’s and F.A.’s mother’s ability to pay; (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering F.A. to pay the secure detention costs; and (3) the juvenile court erred by failing to consider the Child Support Rules and Guidelines. The State concedes that the juvenile court was required to inquire into F.A.’s and her mother’s ability to pay the secure detention costs. The State, however, does not address F.A.’s remaining arguments.
…
Regardless of whether DCS or the county is responsible for paying the services, the statutes provide that a delinquent child’s parents are financially responsible for any services ordered by the court and must provide reimbursement unless the court determines that they are unable to pay or that justice would not be served by ordering payment from the parent. See I.C. § 31-40-1-3(c); I.C. § 31- 40-1-3.8(c); see also E.M., 128 N.E.3d at 5. “Thus, implicit in an order for parents to reimburse costs is that parents are able to pay and that such is in the interest of justice.” E.M., 128 N.E.3d at 7. This Court has held that “the reimbursement statute requires the juvenile court to inquire into parents’ ability to pay and what justice requires for any given set of circumstances before it can order parents to pay or reimburse costs.” Id.
F.A. argues the juvenile court failed to inquire into F.A.’s mother’s ability to pay. The State concedes that the juvenile court failed to properly inquire into F.A.’s and her mother’s ability to pay and that remand is necessary. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the juvenile court to conduct an inquiry into F.A.’s mother’s ability to pay. See, e.g., id. at 7 (requiring the juvenile court to inquire into the juvenile’s parents’ ability to pay).
F.A. also argues that the juvenile court did not have statutory authority to order her to pay the costs of secure detention…Both the reimbursement statutes applicable to DCS and the statues applicable to the county allow the juvenile court to order the child’s parents to pay such costs. See I.C. § 31-40-1-3(c) (“[T]he juvenile court shall order the child’s parents or the guardian of the child’s estate to pay . . . .”); I.C. § 31- 40-1-3.8 (“[T]he juvenile court shall order the child’s parents to pay . . . .”). The statutes do not allow the juvenile court to order the child to pay the costs of secure detention. Accordingly, the juvenile court erred by ordering F.A. to pay the costs of secure detention. We reverse the juvenile court’s order that F.A. pay such costs of secure detention.
F.A. also argues that the reimbursement is limited by the Child Support Rules and Guidelines. Where the county is responsible for the costs of secure detention, Indiana Code Section 31-40-1-3.8 provides in relevant part:
(a) . . . . The juvenile court shall use the Child Support Rules and Guidelines of the Indiana supreme court and the child support obligation worksheet developed by the Indiana supreme court to determine what each parent should pay for the services provided for the child under this section. If the parent participates with the treatment plans developed by the department or court, the parent or parents are entitled to receive a parenting time credit under the Child Support Rules and Guidelines. (b) Each person described in subsection (a) shall, before a hearing under subsection (c) concerning payment or reimbursement of costs, furnish the court with an accurately completed and current child support obligation worksheet on the same form that is prescribed by the Indiana supreme court for child support orders.
Similarly, where DCS is responsible for the costs of secure detention, Indiana Code Section 31-40-1-3(b) provides:
Each person described in subsection (a) shall, before a hearing under subsection (c) concerning payment or reimbursement of costs, furnish the court and the department with an accurately completed and current child support obligation worksheet on the same form that is prescribed by the Indiana supreme court for child support orders.
Accordingly, on remand, if the juvenile court orders F.A.’s mother to pay reimbursements, the juvenile court shall follow the applicable requirements related to the Child Support Rules and Guidelines.
The juvenile court erred by failing to conduct an inquiry into F.A.’s mother’s ability to pay the costs of secure detention. Moreover, the juvenile court erred by ordering F.A. to pay the costs of secure detention. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., concurs. Riley, J., concurs in result without opinion.