Foley, J.
T.M. appeals his placement in the Department of Correction (DOC) following his delinquency adjudications, arguing it was not the least restrictive option available. We find that the juvenile court erroneously concluded it could not grant wardship to the person with whom T.M. lived in the months before the dispositional hearing. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings.
…
T.M. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it made him a ward of the DOC instead of placing him with Coates.
…
Here, we find that the juvenile court abused its discretion by misinterpreting the disposition options available to it under Indiana Code section 31-37-19-6. Under that statue, a dispositional decree may, among other things: (D) Remove the child from the child’s home and place the child in another home . . . [; and] (E) Award wardship to a: (i) person, other than the department . . . . Ind. Code § 31-37-19-6(b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E)(i) (2023). When presented with the option of placing T.M. with Coates, the court determined it could not do so because she did not have guardianship or custody of T.M. and the court did not have jurisdiction over her as a non-party. But section 31-37-19-6 plainly authorizes the court to place T.M. in Coates’ home and grant wardship to her, provided that placement was “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.”
…
As a result of its incorrect interpretation of the juvenile code, the court did not explore placing T.M. with Coates and instead concluded the only viable disposition was placement in the DOC. We are not confident, however, that the court would have made the same decision had it correctly interpreted section 31-37-19-6. Indeed, T.M. lived with Coates from at least October 24, 2025, until February 11, 2026. At each of the four dispositional hearings, T.M. provided the court with positive updates, all stemming from his stay with Coates, including volunteering at the Evansville Rescue Mission and completion of skills workbooks, makeup schoolwork, and group therapy at Deaconess Outpatient Youth. In addition, T.M. was actively volunteering with Coates and seeking employment. Due in part to this progress and hoping to prolong it, the court continued the dispositional hearing three times.
In sum, the juvenile court’s decision was significantly impacted by its misunderstanding of the law, which constitutes an abuse of discretion.
For these reasons, we reverse the juvenile court’s commitment of T.M. to the DOC and remand to consider whether placement with Coates is consistent with the safety of the community and in T.M.’s best interest.
Reversed and remanded.
Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.