United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

PATRICK V.,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. George S. Singal, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Howard, Circuit Judge,

Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.

Robert E. Mongue on brief for appellant.

July 1, 2004
-2-

COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. At the earlier stage of our

appellate consideration of this case, we concluded that neither we

nor the district court had before us sufficient information about

where Patrick V. would serve his detention time, and the nature of

the services such facility offered - facts which we thought were

relevant to the district court's disposition. So we remanded the

case for completion of the record "as to the location of the

facility of detention, its policies, programs and resources."

United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3, 13 (1st Cir. 2004). We

gave both the court and the parties a difficult task. It was to

assess "not the current care and custody of the appellant,

but...the appropriateness of the detention facility as of the time

of the initial disposition hearing." Id. at 14. In other words,

after a good look at the facility chosen by the Bureau of Prisons,

would the district court reaffirm or alter its disposition?

In a subsequent evidentiary hearing before the district court,

government witnesses included officials of the Cresson Secure

Treatment Unit in Cresson, Pennsylvania (the detention facility in

question), the director of Pennsylvania's Bureau of State Children

and Youth Programs, and an executive of the federal Bureau of

Prisons, Juvenile Services department. Appellant's witnesses were

his mother and a psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Courtney. 

The court, in an Amended Disposition Order, reported that the

Cresson Secure Treatment Unit was distanced by 550 miles from
-3-

Patrick's home and has a capacity of fifty-two residents, of whom

only Patrick and one other were presently non-residents of

Pennsylvania. The average stay is 10.2 months. The facility,

staffed by state certified faculty and following a curriculum

complying with state standards, provides a basic education program

that consists in part of standard subjects such as mathematics,

language arts, and social studies, and selected other subjects such

as Life Skills, Parenting, and Anger Management. For students who

have completed the high school curriculum, College Level

Examination Program courses are offered, and students pursuing

these score in the eighty-fifth percentile. Mental health services

of a psychologist and a psychiatrist are made available four hours

a week. Family sessions take place in person or by telephone, the

aim being for one session a week. 

Prior to the court's initial disposition, Dr. Courtney

interviewed Patrick and, on his impression of Cresson's programs,

arrived at his conclusion that Cresson was not a good match with

Patrick's needs. The shorter time span of its treatment cycle, its

focus on students with learning difficulties, and his disagreement

with several aspects of its programming, including family therapy

and drug abuse prevention, were his reasons. His testimony at the

hearing on remand was necessarily limited to Patrick's needs as of

the date of the initial hearing. 
-4-

Dr. Courtney also submitted a detailed, thirty page

"Psychiatric Evaluation," which was accepted into evidence,

containing recommendations for more intensive drug counseling,

association with "positive peers," more attention to social skills,

strengthening empathy, more intensive family "face to face"

therapy, and use of Multisystem Therapy and Family Focus Therapy.

Twelve possible forms of mental disorders were briefly discussed.

This report obviously sought to prescribe the optimum, if not

the ideal, approach to dealing with Patrick's problems. It also

was based on recent interviews with Patrick and his parents, and a

visit to Cresson. To the extent that it discerns any current

inadequacy of the therapy and rehabilitation offered, it trenches

farther than the limited scope of the district court's legitimate

power at this stage of proceedings - the obtaining of information

relevant to the court's determination of commitment and length of

detention.

Nevertheless, the report is significantly corroborated by the

affidavit of a government witness, James C. Johns, Director of the

Pennsylvania Bureau of State Children and Youth Programs in the

Department of Public Welfare. The Department, he averred, believed

that Patrick's placement at Cresson was "not optimal to ensure his

effective rehabilitation." The typical shorter time span of its

system and the distance from the juvenile's home, limiting parental
-5-

involvement, family counseling, strong judicial oversight, and

regular case reviews were cited as reasons.

The court, while recognizing the criticisms levied, concluded

that the evidence did not indicate that the Cresson facility could

not provide the statutorily required "adequate food, heat, light,

sanitary facilities, bedding, clothing, recreation, counseling,

education, training, and medical care including necessary

psychiatric, psychological, or other care and treatment." See 18

U.S.C. § 5039. It noted that any educational program offered by a

detention facility would necessarily differ from opportunities at

a public or private high school. And it recognized that distance

did make family therapy more difficult, but not insuperable with

telephone or video conferencing. 

As a result of its review of the supplemented record, the

court, noting the shorter stays typical at the Cresson facility,

and trying to balance the need for rehabilitation with protection

of the public, reduced the period of detention ordered from thirty

to twenty-four months. We see no abuse of discretion on this

record. We think that this kind of judgment is entirely

appropriate for a judge in a juvenile matter under these

circumstances. We also echo the district court's awareness of the

exclusive authority given the Attorney General in the placement of

juveniles committed to his custody.
-6-

Perhaps of more importance is the court's recommendation that

"the remainder of Patrick's term of detention be served in an

institution located closer to his home in Maine, if possible."

What lends force to this recommendation is that on this record,

there is no dispute. Not only Dr. Courtney but also Mr. Johns,

speaking for the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, have

advanced their reasons for a more appropriate placement. And we

note that no opposing memorandum or comment has been submitted by

the government. We lend our own hope to this recommendation.

Affirmed.