DAVID, Justice.

At a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court imposed on the delinquent child a determinate commitment of two years at the Department of Correction to be followed by an indeterminate commitment. We hold that the determinate and indeterminate commitment statutes in question are unambiguously mutually exclusive, and thus the trial court could impose only one of the commitments on the delinquent child. We reverse the trial court's dispositional order and remand to the trial court to decide, in its discretion, which type of commitment is appropriate.

Facts and Procedural History

In August 2009, when he was fourteen years old, D.C. and three other boys broke into the home of an eighty-nine-year-old woman. They ransacked the home in search of valuables; and they attacked, struck, and injured the homeowner.

Several days after the incident, the State filed a petition, alleging that D.C. was a delinquent child. The State alleged D.C. had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted Class A felony burglary, Class B felony attempted robbery, and Class C felony battery.

The State initially sought to try D.C. as an adult. Pursuant to an admission agreement,1 the State agreed not to seek waiver into adult court; D.C. was adjudicated delinquent for an act that would be Class A felony burglary if committed by an adult; the State dropped the remaining two charges; and disposition was left to the juvenile court.

In November 2009, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Using two different dispositional statutes, the juvenile court imposed on D.C. a determinate commitment of two years at the Department of Correction ("DOC") to be followed by an indeterminate commitment "until the age of 21 unless sooner released by" the DOC.

D.C. filed a motion to correct errors, requesting the juvenile court to amend the dispositional order. Rejecting D.C.'s argument that the juvenile court could not impose both the determinate and indeterminate commitments, the juvenile court denied the motion.

D.C. then appealed the dispositional order, arguing that (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the DOC when a less restrictive placement was available and (2) the juvenile court incorrectly ordered both a determinate two-year commitment and indeterminate commitment. The Court of Appeals rejected D.C.'s first argument but agreed with the second argument, finding that the dispositional statutes in question were mutually exclusive. D.C. v. State, 935 N.E.2d 290 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded with instructions that the juvenile court impose a determinate commitment only. Id. at 296.

We granted transfer to interpret various dispositional statutes within the juvenile code. We summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing D.C. to the DOC even though a less restrictive placement at another facility may have been available. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

Standard of Review

We review a matter of statutory interpretation de novo, as it presents a pure question of law. Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194,196 (Ind.2010).

Juvenile Code Dispositional Alternatives

The juvenile code lists dispositional alternatives that the trial court can impose on a delinquent child, depending on the circumstances of the case. See Ind.Code §§ 31-37-19-1 to -28 (2008 & Supp.2011). Relevant to this case is the interplay between a few of those alternatives, and an overview of those provisions is in order before we examine them in more detail.

Indiana Code section 31-37-19-6 (2008)2 ("section 6") provides for, among other things, an indeterminate commitment of a delinquent child. One option for the trial court under section 6 is to award wardship of the child to the DOC. In that case, the DOC determines both the placement of the juvenile and the duration of the placement. See Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 61 (Ind.1991). Indiana Code section 31-37-19-53 ("section 5") lists a "menu of dispositional options" that may be ordered in addition to an order under section 6. R.J.G. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. 2009). For example, this Court has noted that a juvenile court could order both a commitment to the DOC under section 6 and subsequent probation under section 5. Id. Finally, Indiana Code section 31-37-19-104 ("section 10") provides for a determinate commitment of a juvenile for up to two years to the DOC if the juvenile fits certain criteria. Specifically, the section applies to delinquent children who have committed one of the listed felonies in the provision; were at least fourteen years old when committing the felony; and have had two unrelated prior delinquent offenses that included acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult. Ind.Code § 31-37-19-10(a). Section 10 explicitly states that the DOC cannot reduce the period that the juvenile court orders under the section. Id. § 31-37-19-10(c).

In this case, the juvenile court committed D.C. to the DOC for a determinate period of two years under section 10 and awarded wardship over D.C. to the DOC for an indeterminate term under section 6.5 Thus, the court ordered a minimum commitment of two years, which the DOC could not reduce, to be followed by wardship to the DOC, who would then possess the authority and discretion to detain D.C. until he turned twenty-one or to release him sooner.

D.C. agrees that he fits the enumerated criteria in section 10. Class A burglary is a listed felony under the provision; D.C. was fourteen when he committed the burglary; and by the time of this incident, D.C.'s prior delinquent offenses included acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted one count of Class C felony criminal confinement and two counts of Class D felony auto theft. D.C. also does not dispute the trial court's authority to impose either an indeterminate commitment under section 6 or a determinate commitment under section 10. D.C. rather challenges the court's authority to impose both on him simultaneously, arguing that the plain language of section 6 disallows that action. The State, on the other hand, argues that it is reasonable to interpret the statutes to authorize the juvenile court's dispositional order in this case.

The Court of Appeals agreed with D.C., focusing largely on the opening clause of sub-section (b) in section 6. Section 6(b) states in part,

I.C. § 31-37-19-6(b). The Court of Appeals stated that the "[e]xcept as provided in section 10" language unambiguously precluded the juvenile court from entering both an indeterminate commitment under section 6 and a determinate commitment under section 10. D.C., 935 N.E.2d at 294-96.

The court contrasted section 6's opening clause with its subsequent language specifying that the juvenile court may enter any order specified in section 5 and take any of the actions under section 6. Id. at 294-95. The Court of Appeals concluded that the latter language is a provision for "additional option[s]" but that the opening clause references section 10 as an "alternative option." Id. at 295.

To bolster that conclusion, the Court of Appeals discussed a different determinate commitment statute—Indiana Code section 31-37-19-9 ("section 9"). D.C., 935 N.E.2d at 294 n. 2. Section 9 is a determinate commitment statute that is applicable to juvenile offenders who are sex or violent offenders and who fit certain other criteria.6 I.C. § 31-37-19-9. The Court of Appeals noted that two different phrases— one in section 5 and one in section 9— explicitly authorize a juvenile court to impose a section 6 indeterminate commitment and section 9 determinate commitment simultaneously. D.C., 935 N.E.2d at 294 n. 2. On the other hand, similar language authorizing both a section 6 indeterminate commitment and a section 10 determinate commitment does not exist. Id.

The Court of Appeals first pointed out that a determinate commitment under section 9 is one of the options listed in section 5, which is a statute that lists what a juvenile court can order in addition to a section 6 indeterminate commitment. Id. The court noted that section 10, on the other hand, "is not one of the options under section 5." Id. Second, the court noted that section 9 states in part that "the juvenile court may, in addition to an order under section 6 of this chapter ... order wardship of the child to the [DOC] for a fixed period that is not longer than the date the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age. ..." Id. (alteration and omissions in original) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-19-9(b)). The Court of Appeals found that section 9's "in addition to" language referencing section 6 supported the conclusion that section 10, lacking similar language, is "an exclusive penalty." Id.

The Court of Appeals felt bound by the plain language of section 6, but it acknowledged that "the statutes as written do not seem to serve their intended purpose." Id. at 295. The court noted that section 10 appears intended to impose a more severe penalty on delinquent children who are being adjudicated for a comparatively serious offense, yet section 10 establishes a two-year determinate commitment as a maximum rather than a minimum term. Id. The Court of Appeals further noted that if mutually exclusive from an indeterminate term, application of section 10 could result in a shorter commitment than an indeterminate commitment ordered for less serious offenses and offenders. Id. It found these possible results "antithetical to the purpose of the statutes" but stressed that because of the statutes' unambiguous language, it could not look to legislative intent. Id. at 295-96.

The Court of Appeals held that "any or all of the dispositional alternatives in sections 5 and 6 are available to the juvenile court unless the juvenile fits within the parameters of section 10, in which case section 10 exclusively describes the available penalty." Id. at 295. Accordingly, because D.C. fit under section 10's criteria, the Court of Appeals remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to impose only a determinate commitment of up to two years under section 10. Id. at 296.

Although we agree with the conclusion that sections 6 and 10 are mutually exclusive, we do not agree that the juvenile court had to impose a determinate commitment under section 10 in this case. Rather, we believe that the juvenile court has discretion to choose between the two provisions.

When interpreting a statute, we first decide "whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question." Rheem Mf'g Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941, 947 (Ind.2001). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts do not apply any rules of construction other than giving effect to the plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of the language. Id. Thus, this Court will not examine legislative intent unnecessarily when no ambiguity exists. Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 922 (Ind.2011).

The State takes issue with the Court of Appeals decision in two respects. The State first argues that "the `except as provided in' language in section 6 can be interpreted to mean simply that unless the juvenile meets the conditions of section 10, the juvenile court's options for committing the juvenile to an authorized facility are subject to the limitations contained in section 6." The State continues, "[h]owever, where section 10 applies, the court has the additional option of imposing a longer fixed commitment authorized by that section." The State also argues that if a juvenile fits the criteria of section 10, the juvenile court may impose a determinate commitment under section 10 but the court is not obligated to do so.

The State's first argument is not convincing. As the Court of Appeals observed, "`Except' is defined as `with the exclusion or exception of'" D.C., 935 N.E.2d at 295 n. 3 (citing www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/except (last visited September 20, 2010)). Thus, section 6(b)'s language—"[e]xcept as provided in section 10 ... the juvenile court may"—can be rephrased as "the juvenile court may [take any of the following actions] with the exception of the option under section 10." What section 6(b) does not say is the following: "Except as provided in section 10 of this chapter ... the juvenile court may only [take any of the following actions]." If it did, then we may agree with the State that section 6 limits the juvenile court's options unless section 10 applies, in which case section 10 is an additional, versus an alternative, option.

Also, if the legislature had not clearly provided that the juvenile court can impose a section 9 determinate commitment with a section 6 indeterminate commitment, while failing to provide similarly for a section 10 determinate commitment, the State's argument may have more merit. But we agree with the Court of Appeals and D.C. that by its plain terms, the "except as provided in section 10" language in section 6 sets forth an exception to the juvenile court's authority to order an indeterminate commitment. That is, if the court exercises its authority under section 10 to order a determinate commitment, it may not order an indeterminate commitment under section 6. Or, in other words, the juvenile court can use section 6 to order an indeterminate commitment unless it proceeds under section 10 to order a determinate commitment.

We do agree, however, with the State's second argument. Section 10(b) provides that the juvenile court "may" issue a determinate commitment of not more than two years. The commitment options in section 6 are likewise permissive. We do not see anything in either provision that mandates a juvenile court to impose a section 10 determinate commitment if the juvenile fits the section 10 criteria. This is consistent with language from this Court's opinion in J.D. v. State, 853 N.E.2d 945, 949 (Ind.2006): "The juvenile court judge had the authority to decide whether to employ `determinate sentencing' in the first place; it was one of the juvenile court's `dispositional alternatives' to proceed under Indiana Code section 31-37-19-10 but the court was not required to utilize this provision." Thus, the Court of Appeals should have remanded the case to the juvenile court for a dispositional order committing D.C. under either section 6 or section 10 instead of instructing the juvenile court to impose only a section 10 determinate commitment.

The State fervently argues that holding sections 6 and 10 mutually exclusive contravenes the purpose of the statutes. In fact, D.C. does not dispute this. We agree with the State that juvenile courts would retain more flexibility in fashioning dispositions for serious, recidivist juvenile offenders who fall under section 10 if a section 10 determinate commitment was an additional, instead of alternative, option to a section 6 indeterminate commitment. But the language of section 6 is clear and unambiguous, and we accordingly hold that sections 6 and 10 as written are mutually exclusive. We leave it to the legislature to change the statutes, if it deems necessary.

Although juvenile courts must adhere to statutory mandates, this Court has recognized that juvenile court judges operate against a "backdrop of flexibility." N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085, 1089 (Ind.2002). We further note that the purpose of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate a child, whenever possible. See J.C.C. v. State, 897 N.E.2d 931, 935 (Ind.2008) (noting the "overarching rehabilitative thrust of Indiana's juvenile justice system"); see also I.C. § 31-10-2-1(5). Even if this goal of rehabilitation is straightforward, achieving it is often elusive. Juvenile judges are faced with the sometimes almost insurmountable challenge of sorting out conflicting recommendations concerning a child, requiring the judges to balance the needs of a child against the interests of the community. They must consider numerous factors—the importance of family; the protection of society; the benefit of proceeding in an efficient and cost-effective manner; and, of course, the fact that the delinquent is still a child, often with a life that has been anything but childlike. Thus, because there is no statutory language requiring a juvenile court to impose either a section 6 or a section 10 commitment, we hold that the appropriate course of action is to allow the juvenile court, in its discretion, to decide which commitment is appropriate for D.C.

Conclusion

We reverse the trial court's dispositional order. We remand to the trial court to impose either a section 6 or section 10 commitment.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.