... for purposes of the restitution statute, I.C. 35-50-5-3, it substitutes for the civil judgment which is normally the basis for a judgment lien. Because the trial court must base its restitution order upon evidence of the crime victim's actual loss, the victim is not obliged to subsequently pursue an independent civil action for money damages to enforce the restitution order, when the sole purpose of such an action would be to establish the amount of its loss. Id. at 458-59 (emphases added). 2 . The State does not suggest that the issue raised by M.M. on appeal — the juvenile court’s authority to continue his restitution obligation despite M.M.'s discharge from probation — is moot in light of M.M.’s discharge from probation. Cf. Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814, 816 n. 1 (Ind.2011) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). 3 . M.M. does not challenge
holding that a probationers challenge to a condition of his probation was moot in light of the supreme courts reversal of the underlying conviction and the probationers apparent completion of probation  holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation holding search provision in probation order constitute a reasonable and necessary element of the courts regulation of probationers which did not require the defendants consent holding unanimously that a warrantless search of a probationers apartment that was supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized as a condition of his probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding that probationer failed to satisfy two of the three prongs of the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition was reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation