J-S48020-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.J.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

: PENNSYLVANIA 

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: L.J.B. : No. 1968 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order October 31, 2014, 

Court of Common Pleas, Venango County, 

Criminal Division at No(s): J.V. No. 141-2007 and J.V. No. 45-2011 

BEFORE: PANELLA, DONOHUE and WECHT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 18, 2015 

 Appellant, L.J.B., appeals from the order entered on October 31, 2014 

by the Court of Common Pleas, Venango County, committing him to one 

year of involuntary inpatient treatment for sexually violent behavior, in 

accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6403 (“Act 21”).1 After reviewing the 

record, we affirm. 

 A summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is as follows. 

From 2007 to 2008, L.J.B. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses, 

including criminal mischief, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1), theft from a motor 

vehicle, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3934(a), possession of a weapon on school property, 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 912, and access device fraud, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4106(a)(1)(iii). 

In 2009, a juvenile court adjudicated L.J.B. delinquent for involuntary 

 

1

 Section 6403 is part of a statute commonly referred to as Act 21, see 

42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6401-09, “which sets forth a comprehensive scheme for 

treating sexually violent juveniles before they ‘age out’ of the juvenile 

system.” See In re K.A.P., 916 A.2d 1152, 1156 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007). 
J-S48020-15 

- 2 - 

deviate sexual intercourse, which would have been a violation of 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b), a felony of the first degree, if committed by an 

adult. In 2011, a juvenile court adjudicated L.J.B. delinquent for indecent 

assault, which would have been a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7), a 

misdemeanor of the first degree, if committed by an adult. As a result of his 

adjudications, L.J.B. resided in several treatment facilities for adolescents 

from 2008 to 2014, including Pathways Adolescent Center/Independent 

Living Program, Hermitage House ADAPT program, and Cove Prep, where he 

participated in sexual offender treatment as well as drug and alcohol 

counseling. 

 L.J.B. turned twenty years old on February 23, 2014. At that time, 

L.J.B. remained in placement at Cove Prep. After a juvenile dispositional 

review hearing on July 11, 2014, the trial court determined that the Venango 

County Solicitor’s Office (the “County”) had established a prima facie case 

that L.J.B. was in need of involuntary commitment for treatment under Act 

21, and directed the County to petition the court for involuntary commitment 

of L.J.B. for treatment. On July 24, 2014, the County filed a petition for 

involuntary treatment pursuant to Act 21. 

At the Act 21 hearing on October 27, 2014, the County introduced 

testimony by Cathy Clover (“Clover”), a licensed psychologist and board 

member of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Sexual Offenders 

Assessment Board (“SOAB”). Clover opined that L.J.B. did not suffer from a 
J-S48020-15 

- 3 - 

mental abnormality, but did suffer from anti-social personality disorder. 

N.T., 10/27/14, at 37-38. Clover testified that L.J.B. exhibited a persistent 

and pervasive pattern of disregard and violation of the rights of others, 

which is indicative of an adult anti-social personality. Id. at 38-42. Clover 

found that L.J.B. failed to conform to social norms, as evidenced by his 

numerous arrests; failed to conform to the rules and expectations of his 

placements by smuggling a cell phone and drugs into the facility and 

“signing into work and then leaving to meet his girlfriend”; engaged in 

reckless disregard for the safety of himself, evidenced by his substance 

abuse, by sexually assaulting others, and by having sex with his girlfriend in 

the presence of her two young children; repeatedly failed to sustain work 

behavior; and lacked remorse. Id. at 39-40. Clover also testified that antisocial personality disorder “significantly increases the likelihood of engaging 

in any general criminologic behavior but especially sexual inappropriate 

behavior as one of those types of behavior.” Id. at 44. 

L.J.B. introduced expert testimony by Dr. Timothy P. Foley (“Dr. 

Foley”), a licensed psychologist. Dr. Foley testified that although L.J.B. 

exhibited traits of anti-social personality disorder, he could not, within a 

reasonable degree of certainty, conclude that L.J.B. suffered from anti-social 

personality disorder that would make him likely to engage in sex offenses, 

stating: 
J-S48020-15 

- 4 - 

Personality disorders are hypothesized to last 

forever. Can we give him a diagnosis today that we

think will stand the test of time or reasonably would 

stand the test of time for the rest of his life or at 

least until his 40’s and I have real question marks

about that. ... So, are there some anti-social traits? 

Yes. Within a reasonable degree of certainty do I 

think those anti-social personality traits will persist 

and make him likely to perpetrate sex offenses? No. 

Id. at 113-14. Dr. Foley also opined that L.J.B. has a higher risk of 

relapsing with drugs and alcohol than he does for sex offending. Id. at 104. 

 On October 31, 2014, the trial court entered an order, finding by clear 

and convincing evidence that L.J.B. was in need of involuntary treatment 

under Act 21 due to antisocial personality disorder, which results in his 

serious difficulty in controlling sexually violent behavior and makes him likely 

to engage in an act of sexual violence. The trial court noted that “[i]n 

making [its] determination, the court accept[ed] as credible the report and 

testimony from [] Clover.” Trial Court Order, 10/31/14, at 7. 

 L.J.B. filed a timely notice of appeal on November 26, 2014, raising 

the following issue for our review: 

Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its 

discretion in ordering involuntary treatment under 

Act 21 when the weight of the evidence showed that 

due to [L.J.B.’s] age and history, he should not have 

been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder; 

that the County’s expert used inappropriate 

analytical techniques in diagnosing [L.J.B.] with antisocial personality disorder; that [L.J.B.’s] diagnosis 

of anti-social personality disorder does not result in 

him having serious difficulty controlling sexually 
J-S48020-15 

- 5 - 

violent behavior that then makes him likely to 

engage in an act of sexual violence in the future? 

L.J.B.’s Brief at 9. 

 To prevail on a petition under Act 21, the moving party must establish 

by clear and convincing evidence that the individual: 

(1) Has been adjudicated delinquent for an act of 

sexual violence which if committed by an adult would 

be a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 3121 (relating to 

rape), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse), 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault), 

3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault), 3126 

(relating to indecent assault) or 4302 (relating to

incest). 

(2) Has been committed to an institution or other 

facility pursuant to section 6352 (relating to 

disposition of delinquent child) and remains in any

such institution or facility upon attaining 20 years of 

age as a result of having been adjudicated 

delinquent for the act of sexual violence. 

(3) Is in need of involuntary treatment due to a 

mental abnormality or personality disorder which 

results in serious difficulty in controlling sexually 

violent behavior that makes the person likely to 

engage in an act of sexual violence. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6403(a). 

 In this case, L.J.B. does not contest that the first two subparagraphs of 

section 6403 were established. L.J.B.’s Brief at 12-13. L.J.B. admitted to 

and was adjudicated delinquent of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3123, and indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126, both of which 

are included offenses under section 6403(a)(1). Id. Furthermore, L.J.B. 

does not dispute that he was in juvenile placement when he turned twenty 
J-S48020-15 

- 6 - 

years old. Id. at 13; N.T., 10/27/14, at 5, 10. On appeal, L.J.B. assails the 

trial court’s finding with respect to section 6403(a)(3), namely, that he is in 

need of involuntary treatment due to a personality disorder. L.J.B.’s Brief at 

13. L.J.B. argues that the trial court’s determination in this regard was 

against the weight of the evidence. 

 We review a weight of the evidence claim according to the following 

standard: 

A claim alleging the verdict was against the weight of 

the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the 

trial court. Accordingly, an appellate court reviews 

the exercise of the trial court's discretion; it does not 

answer for itself whether the verdict was against the 

weight of the evidence. It is well settled that the

[fact-finder] is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence and to determine the credibility of the 

witnesses, and a new trial based on a weight of the

evidence claim is only warranted where the 

[factfinder’s] verdict is so contrary to the evidence 

that it shocks one's sense of justice. In determining 

whether this standard has been met, appellate 

review is limited to whether the trial judge's 

discretion was properly exercised, and relief will only 

be granted where the facts and inferences of record

disclose a palpable abuse of discretion. 

Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 795-96 (Pa. Super. 2015) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158, 165 (Pa. Super. 2012)). 

L.J.B. contends that the trial court should have given more weight to 

Dr. Foley’s testimony rather than Clover’s testimony. L.J.B.’s Brief at 14-20. 

The record reflects, however, that the trial court heard all of the testimony 

and made its credibility determinations, choosing to credit Clover’s 
J-S48020-15 

- 7 - 

testimony that L.J.B. had antisocial personality disorder. As we are mindful 

of our “our obligation to respect the fact finder’s credibility determinations 

and the weight it accords the evidence,” we find no fault with the trial court’s 

conclusion, based upon Clover’s testimony, that L.J.B. was in need of 

involuntary treatment under Act 21 due to antisocial personality disorder. 

See Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658, 670 (Pa. Super. 2013). Finding no 

abuse of discretion, L.J.B. is not entitled to relief. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/18/2015