Court Opinion

ID: 9895579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 19:09:07.317016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:35.094124
License: Public Domain

J-S30023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: T.N.A, A                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: T.N.A., A MINOR                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 939 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 10, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-45-JV-0000026-2023

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

       T.N.A., a fifteen-year-old minor, appeals1 from the disposition order

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, placing her in an

out-of-home detention facility. T.N.A. argues the juvenile court abused its

discretion, claiming that, based on the expert testimony of psychiatrist Dr.

Andrew Clark, family testimony, and the availability of community-based

treatment, this was not the least restrictive treatment available. After our

review, we affirm based on the trial court opinion authored by the Honorable

David J. Williamson.

       T.N.A. was adjudicated delinquent on charges of aggravated assault,

criminal mischief, simple assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and
____________________________________________

1 The docket indicates that a dispositional order, dated March 10, 2023, was

entered on March 14, 2023. On March 15, 2023, the court entered an
amended dispositional hearing order. This appeal, taken from the March 10,
2023 order, was timely filed on April 5, 2023. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); 905(5).
J-S30023-23

harassment as a result of an incident in February 2023. At that time, T.N.A.

was on probation for an incident at Pocono Mountain West High School, during

which she had threatened school personnel, made homicidal threats regarding

her parents, physically assaulted the dean of students, and had to be

restrained by police. T.N.A. was found in violation of probation as a result of

the new charges.

       Following an adjudicatory/disposition hearing, the court determined

T.N.A. was in need of treatment and ordered placement at North Central

Secure Treatment Unit, stating it was “the least restrictive type of placement

that is consistent with the protection of the public and best suited to [T.N.A.’s]

treatment,        supervision,        rehabilitation,   and    welfare.”      See

Adjudicatory/Disposition Hearing Order, 3/10/23.2

       T.N.A. raises one issue on appeal:

       Is it an abuse of discretion when the trial court, based solely upon
       the Juvenile Probation Department’s recommendation, removed
       [T.N.A.] from her home, when T.N.A.’s mother, her family
       therapist, and an expert in adolescent behavioral psychology all

____________________________________________

2 The court’s order specified that T.N.A. “shall undergo psychiatric treatment

and shall undergo a psychiatric evaluation and abide by any recommendations
for treatment[,]” and that [t]his placement and [T.N.A.] shall be reviewed in
accordance with the Juvenile Act.” Id. Unlike the criminal justice system, in
which a criminal defendant's judgment of sentence continues without further
involvement by the trial court unless overturned on appeal, a juvenile’s
disposition “is subject to frequent, mandatory review by the hearing court.”
In re M.D., 839 A.2d 1116, 1119 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[I]n the event a judge
enters a disposition order that provides for commitment, the judge is
required to review the propriety of that commitment every six months and
must also hold a disposition hearing at least every nine months.” Id. (citing
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6353) (emphasis in original).

                                           -2-
J-S30023-23

      testified at her dispositional hearing that secure detention was not
      the least restrictive means available to meet T.N.A.’s needs?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

      We review “a juvenile court's dispositional order directing out-of-home

placement for an abuse of discretion.” Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d 573, 576

(Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).       We will not disturb the disposition

implemented by juvenile court absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In re

R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 681 (Pa. Super. 2012). “It is well settled that, under

Pennsylvania law, an abuse of discretion occurs when the court has overridden

or misapplied the law, when its judgment is manifestly unreasonable, or when

there is insufficient evidence of record to support the court’s findings.”

Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d at 576 (internal brackets and citation omitted).

Moreover, we note that, “in a juvenile proceeding, the hearing judge sits as

the finder of fact. The weight to be assigned the testimony of the witnesses is

within the exclusive province of the fact finder.” Id. (citation omitted). See

also Interest of C.B., 241 A.3d 677, 681 (Pa. Super. 2020) (juvenile courts

afforded broad discretion to craft appropriate disposition).

      Section 6352 of the Juvenile Act sets forth six dispositional options for

juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent, including placement on

supervision and commitment to a facility for delinquent children. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 6352(a). In choosing among these alternatives, a juvenile court

must consider which dispositional alternative is

      consistent with the protection of the public interest and best suited
      to the child’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare,

                                      -3-
J-S30023-23

      which disposition shall, as appropriate to the individual
      circumstances of the child’s case, provide balanced attention to
      the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability
      for offenses committed and the development of competencies to
      enable the child to become a responsible and productive member
      of the community[.]

Id.   Further, when a disposition involves an out-of-home placement, the

juvenile court must explain on the record why such commitment is “the least

restrictive placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and

best suited to the child's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare.”

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6352(c). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(3)(i) (disposition

“separating the child from parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety

or health or in the interests of public safety, by doing all of the following: (i)

employing evidence-based practices whenever possible and, in the case of a

delinquent child, by using the least restrictive intervention that is consistent

with the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for

offenses committed and the rehabilitation, supervision and treatment needs

of the child”).

      Here, the court heard testimony from T.N.A.’s mother, T.N.A.’s family

therapist, T.N.A.’s probation officer, Patrol Officer Austin Price, and Dr.

Andrew Clark, psychiatrist and section chief of the adolescent behavioral

health unit at St. Luke’s Hospital, who had treated T.N.A. for two inpatient

admissions on November 3, 2022, and on February 9, 2023.                    After

consideration of the testimony from the adjudicatory and dispositional

hearings, the juvenile court concluded that community-based treatment and

                                      -4-
J-S30023-23

placement with her parents was “less than what is necessary at this time.”

Trial Court Opinion, 4/12/23, at 12. See also id. at 10-11 (noting T.N.A.’s

lack of self-awareness and remorse, stating “[w]hether her actions are due to

prior trauma and dissociative rage or some other mental health condition, or

simply reactive behavioral issues, [T.N.A.] needs more help than what has

been provided in the community[,]” and disagreeing with recommendations

of “more of the same”).

      We defer to the juvenile court’s credibility determinations, D.W., supra,

and conclude that the court’s findings are well-supported by the record. We

find no manifest abuse of discretion. R.D., supra. Accordingly, we affirm the

court’s order based on Judge Williamson’s opinion. We direct the parties to

attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings.

      Order affirmed.

Date: 11/7/2023

                                     -5-
                                                                         Circulated 10/13/2023 08:59 AM

                                            1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

                COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY
                      FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                         JUVENILE COURT DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF                               : NO.26 JUVENILE 2023

      T, --N -            -A        -
      A Minor
                                                 : PA.RA.P. 1925(a)

                    STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P, 1925(a)

               The Juvenile having filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on

Appeal with the Notice of Appeal filed April 5, 2023, regarding disposition in a juvenile

delinquency proceeding, this opinion follows:

               The Juvenile in this matter, I    N        eA         ("Juvenile") was the subject

of an adjudication hearing held on March 10, 2023. The Juvenli e is a 15 year old female

(DOB 2// /08) who was charged with two (2) counts of Aggravated Assault (F2), one (1) count

of Criminal Mischief (F3), two (2) counts of Simple Assault (M2), one (1) count of Resisting

Arrest (M2), one (D) count of Disorderly Conduct (M3), and two (2) counts of Harassment (S)

for an incident that occurred in early February 2023.

               At the time of this incident, the Juvenile was already on probation due to an

August 30, 2022 incident at the Pocono Mountain West High School in which the Juvenile

became combative with school staff and the school Resource Officer (case #157 JUV. 2022).

At that time, the Juvenile had made threats to school personnel that she wanted to kill her
                                                    1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

parents. She then physically assaulted Dr. Morrell, the Dean of Students, and Officer Wile, the

school Resource Officer, who tried to talk to her and calm her down. The Juvenile continued to

assault additional staff and police officers called to the scene. She was eventually secured in

handcuffs and placed in the back of a police vehicle. The Juvenile slipped her hands out of the

handcuffs and then she attempted to flee when Officer Wile opened the vehicle door to secure
the Juvenile. The Juvenile then began kicking the door and windows of the police vehicle. She

did not stop until an officer sprayed her with "OC (mace/pepper spray) and EMS arrived on

the scene. The Juvenile eventually entered an admission to simple assault in that matter and

was placed on probation for a minimum period of one year and ordered to attend the PATH day

treatment program full-time and to engage in individual and family counselling. The YLS

Assessment Summary compiled by the Monroe County Juvenile Probation Department for that

incident totaled 17, or at the high end of the moderate range to re-offend.

                  Due to the new charges in this case, the Juvenile was scheduled for an

adjudication hearing on the new charges and for a probation violation hearing on the prior case

(#157 Juv. 2022) to be heard together on February 27, 2023. At the time of the February 27,

2023 hearing, the adjudication hearing in the current case was continued at the request of

counsel and re-scheduled to March 10, 2023. Following a brief hearing on February 27, 2023

on the probation violation, the Juvenile was found to be in violation of the terms of her

probation due to the new charges in this case, threats of harm to her parents that the Juvenile

made to her Probation Officer, Brian Holley, and for leaving her house without permission.' A

'Although one of the Juvenile's parents reported to Officer Holley that the Juvenile had eloped from the home
without permission on the day in question, the Juvenile's parents then claimed one of them gave her permission to
leave for a period of time to cool down. We did not find that testimony credible.

                                                        2
·'                                                 1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

     re-disposition as a result of the probation violation was deferred pending a final adjudication

     hearing in this matter. See #157 JUV. 2022.

                    At the adjudication hearing in this matter, held on March 10, 2023, Officer Price

     of the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department testified that he and another officer were

     dispatched because the Juvenile had left her home in Pocono Country Place (PCP), her
     therapist thought she might be suicidal, and she had run away from PCP Security when they

     approached her. Officer Price then encountered the Juvenile walking along State Route 196, a

     major state road with no sidewalks and minimal shoulder area in a rural part of Monroe

     County. Officer Price pulled over and got out of his vehicle to talk to the Juvenile. He then

     tried to get her to walk back to the. police vehicle, at which time the Juvenile started crying and

     flailing her arms. Officer Price ultimately had to carry the Juvenile to the car and put her in the

     back seat.

                    Officer Price then tried to explain to the Juvenile that he was responding to a

     mental health crisis call about her and that her parents were worried she might be suicidal. The

     Juvenile denied she was suicidal, but said that she was homicidal, and if returned home to her

     parents she would kill them. The officer tried to convince the Juvenile to either go home with

     him to her parents or to the hospital, but she refused. The Juvenile stated she wanted to

     continue walking on Route 196 to her cousins' house in Pocono Farms, which was quite a

     distance away. The officer told her that she was reported as missing and had to go home for

     her own safety. The officer testified the Juvenile was calm at that point, so he closed the door,

     got in the vehicle, and started to drive the Juvenile to her home.

                                                      3
..
                                                   1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

                     During the drive, the Juvenile started to try to bend the camera in the rear seat

     down in some manner. Officer Price became concerned because he was aware of the prior

     incident at the Pocono Mountain West High School with the Juvenile in August 2022 when she

     attempted to strangle herself with the seatbelt in the back seat of a patrol car at one point.

     Concerned the Juvenile would somehow hurt herself, the officer pulled over to stpo in order to

     secure the Juvenile safely. By that time, the Juvenile was also trying more aggressively to

     destroy the camera, including pulling the wires out of it.

                    The Juvenile then fought with the officer as he tried to calm. her down. Officer

     Price decided to handcuff the Juvenile at that point, and he and another responding officer got

     her out of the police vehicle to do so. The Juvenile then dropped to dead weight as the officers

     held her. She then started to bite, kick and scream. The officers managed to get handcuffs on

     the Juvenile and place her in the back of the vehicle again. The Juvenile then proceeded to slip

     out of the handcuffs, laughed at the officers, and twirled the handcuffs in her hands and said

     "Try to do better." The Juvenile then started hitting the plastic divider in the back seat with the

     handcuffs before throwing them out of the partially opened rear window.

                    The Juvenile then started to bite and tear the cloth to the seat and ceiling, while

     continuing to try to pull out exposed wires. Officer Price again attempted to get the Juvenile

     under control. She then kicked the officer in the chest. EMS was called to the scene and the

     Juvenile had to be held down until she could be loaded on an ambulance and transported to the

     hospital. She continued to try to hit and bite the first responders until she was restrained. The

     Juvenile was eventually sedated at the hospital. Officer Price testified that the Juvenile's

                                                      4
                                              1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

behavior, while out of control, did not appear to be a temper tantrum like that of a toddler. The

officer's testimony was credible and convincing.

               Dr. Andrew Clark of St. Luke's Hospital, testified on behalf of the Juvenile. Dr.
Clark is a psychiatrist in the child adolescent behavioral services department of St. Luke's,

where the Juvenile was ultimately transported. Dr. Clark stated that the Juvenile had a prior
diagnosis of depressive disorder and ADHD. Dr. Clark was aware of prior trauma the Juvenile

suffered that he said results in a "fight or flight" reaction at times. He called the Juvenile's

actions on the day in question the result of a dissociative blackout trauma state. Dr. Clark

doubted the Juvenile had the ability to control herself, although he was uncertain when she

entered that state of mind that day. He testified that her mindset was a dissociative rage. Dr.

Clark stated that the officer's description of what happened made it apparent that the Jvenile
                                                                                        u

was clearly psychotic at the time. However, he stated she may have had some decision making

instances throughout the event, but could not state when. Dr. Clark feels the Juvenile can

safely be in the community, but agreed she should not be able to walk-out of her home without

permission like that again. Dr. Clark then stated that the Juvenile does not have a specific

psychotic diagnosis, that he believes she may have oppositional defiant disorder, and her

reaction in this case was more of a dissociative rage in a regressed manner due to the Juvenile's

age and maturity level. Dr. Clark has not seen the Juvenile since her release following the

hospital admission ofFebruary 9, 2023 in this matter.

               We ultimately found some of Dr. Clark's testimony compelling and convincing,

but not as to all of the behaviors exhibited by the Juvenile on the date of this incident. As a

                                                  5
                                                   1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

result, the Juvenile was found delinquent as to criminal mischief (as a summary offense),"

Resisting Arrest (M2), and Disorderly Conduct (M3). We stated those reasons on the record at

time of the adjudication hearing and incorporate them herein. An immediate disposition was-

then held on March 10, 2023. The Probation Officer confirmed a placement was available at

North Central Secure. The Commonwealth and the Probation Officer recommended placement
due to behavioral concerns, the threats conveyed by the Juvenile prior to this incident and again

on the day of this incident to the Probation Officer and to the police that she would kill her

parents, and the need for in-depth psychiatric evaluation and treatment. The Court also heard

from the Juvenile's community therapist from Merakey and the Juvenile's mother. The

disposition entered in this matter was placement of the Juvenile at the North Central Secure

residential program with a bed available the following week.

                 The therapist from Merakey confirmed at disposition that the Juvenile is

scheduled to attend the PATH day treatment program three days per week, and that the Juvenile

meets with the Merakey therapist two days per week. The Juvenile was recently approved for

another thirty-two (32) weeks of therapy with Merakey. The counselling with Merakey and the

PATH program have been involved with the Juvenile at least since her placement on probation

in case #157 JUV. 2022. The Juvenile sees the Merakey therapist individually one day per

week, and together with her parents one day per week. The Merakey therapist is working on

issues of anxiety, depression and anger management. The therapist confirmed that on the day

of the incident the Juvenile's Probation Officer made Merakey aware the Juvenile had made

.Criminal Mischief was charged as an (F3) for damage to the inside of the police vehicle, We initially found the
grading was an M3, because there were at least $00 in damages. However, we dropped this to a summary offense
in the written Adjudication Order as we realized there were damages, but no testimony as to an amount of those
damages was given at the adjudication hearing.

                                                       6
                                             1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

threats to kill her parents. The Probation Officer and one of the Juvenile's parents also made

the therapist aware the Juvenile left the home that day. The Merakey therapist was actually on

her way to the home for a therapy session at the time of the Juvenile leaving her home. The

therapist saw the Juvenile walking on the road that day and tried to engage her, but she would

not do so. This interaction was just prior to the police involvement, who the therapist had
called.

               The Juvenile's mother testified the Juvenile has an IEP in school, that she takes

Trazadone to sleep, Zoloft for depression, and something else for anxiety. Dr. Clark thought

she was on Concerta for ADHD, too. The Juvenile's mother could not remember the name of

the Juvenile's psychiatrist who prescribes the medications. She also stated that the Juvenile

does not see the psychiatrist in person; rather, it is one time per month over the phone. It did

not appear the Juvenile had a full psychiatric or psychological evaluation, outside of her IEP

and recent admission to St. Luke's behavioral unit.

               The Juvenile raised three issues in her concise matters complained of on appeal.

The first is that the out-of-home secure placement does not preserve the family unit where the

Juvenile's parents were willing to have the Juvenile in the home. The second was that the

placement disregarded the testimony of Dr. Clark in that it was not the least restrictive

placement. Third, that the placement did not provide balanced attention to protection of the

community, accountability, and development of competencies to assist the Juvenile.

               This court considered the balanced and restorative justice initiatives in the

Juvenile's disposition. It is noted that the Juvenile was already on probation at the time of the

incident for a nearly identical outburst in school six months earlier. For that incident (#157

                                                 7
                                              1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

JUV. 2022), the Juvenile was given an opportunity to work through issues while in the

community. She was also given a chance to be accountable for her actions in the community

by abiding by rules established by the Probation Department and supervised by the court. The

Juvenile's Probation Officer is school based and met with her on a regular basis. The Juvenile

was given a curfew and strict instructions to follow the rules of her parents. Individual and
family counselling were required and instituted for the Juvenile. She was also required to

attend the PATH treatment program on a full-time basis. In other words, the Juvenile was

given an opportunity to address her issues in the community and to be held accountabl ewith

supervision and support.

               Unfortunately, the community-based approach did not work. The services

available in the· community were not enough to prevent the current incident in which the

Juvenile was physically assaultive to law enforcement officers who were trying to help her.

Despite the counselling that was in place, the PATH program, regular meetings with her

Probation Officer, and medications with psychiatric review, the Juvenile again made homicidal

threats against her parents, absconded from the home, refused the assistance of her therapist

who intervened, assaulted several police officers and EMS personnel, and damaged the inside

of a police vehicle. One of two things is apparent from this incident; either the Juvenile did not

learn from the first incident in August and her time on probation, or the services in the

community are insufficient to treat the Juvenile and protect the public. In either instance, the

Juvenile needs to be placed in a secure facility for the protection of the public, accountability,

and for proper treatment.

                                                 8
. .
                                                           1 Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a}.pdf

                         As to protection of the public, this is the second incident in six months where the

       Juvenile physically assaulted various people she came into contact with who were trying to

       help her. In the first incident, it took being sprayed with mace/pepper spray to stop her

       behavior. In the current case, it took a sedative administered at the hospital. The Juvenile had

       stated in both incidents that she wanted to kill her parents. While the Juvenile's parents
       professed not to be afraid of these threats, the court cannot be so certain. At this time, without

       further diagnosis and treatment, we cannot state these threats are harmless. And, in addition to

       the threats, the Juvenile has assaulted various people and destroyed property. Even if these are

       completely to blame on the Juvenile's mental health dissociative rage, as identified by Dr.

       Clark, this repeat incident shows that what is available in the community is not working for the

       Juvenile. She has hit, kicked and bitten various people, she has damaged two police vehicles,

      . and she continues to threaten to kill her parents. It would not be safe right now for her to

       continue to be in the community. It is further noted that the Juvenile likely would have been

       detained by law enforcement and Probation after both incidents had she not been transported to

       the hospital. Furthermore, she was not detained at the time of her Probation Violation hearing

       or immediately following disposition only because there were no detention beds available at the

       time.3 North Central Secure did not have a bed available until the week following the

       adjudication and disposition hearings, so the court had to .leave the Juvenile at home with her

       parents in the meantime.

                        The court also considered accountability in this placement. This was the second

       similar episode in- six months, despite being placed on probation and meeting regularly with her

       ' This underscores the difficulty in securing detention beds for Monroe County juveniles who pose a danger to
       themselves or others. This appears to be a statewide problem without a current solution.

                                                               9
$   d

                                                     1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925a).pdf

        Probation Officer. The Juvenile left her home without permission (although the parents backed

        off this assertion, claiming one of them had given her permission to go for a walk to calm

        down), she again threatened to harm her parents when frustrated by them, and again

        disregarded law enforcement. The Juvenile slipped out of her handcuffs, just as she had in the

        August 2022 incident, and taunted the police officers. There were plenty of moments when the
        Juvenile's behavior appeared lucid at which time she refused to follow directions of adults, her

        therapist, her Probation Officer and police officers. Whatever mental health issues the Juvenile

        may have, it is clear that she has no respect for following rules or trying to reconcile her

        behavior and actions. Prior to becoming physically assaultive, the Juvenile was afforded the

        opportunity to talk with her therapist who found her in the community, or to go to the hospital

        with the police officer, but she refused.

                       We also note that the Juvenile showed little understanding of the impact of her

        behavior in any of the court hearings in this matter. We do not mean that she shouldn't contest

        the proceedings. The Juvenile has every right to do so. Rather, at time of the finding of the

        probation violation and again at disposition, the Juvenile did not apologize to anyone involved.
        She also did not convincingly say she would abide by all of her treatment recommendations

        and try to find a way for this behavior to not happen again. There seemed to be little self-

        awareness and remorse for what had happened. Placement in a full-time residential program is

        more appropriate at this point for purposes of the Juvenile's accountability than what she could

        get in the community.

                       The overriding concern of this·Court at time of disposition was the need for

        services for the Juvenile. Whether her actions are due to prior trauma and dissociative rage or

                                                         10
..
                                                 1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

     some other mental health condition, or simply reactive behavioral issues, the Juvenile needs

     more help than what has been provided in the community. Instead, Dr. Clark and Merakey are

     recommending more of the same. It is apparent that what has been attempted in the community

     for the Juvenile is not working. Since the incident in August 2022 (#157 JUV. 2022), the

     Juvenile has had two (2) admissions to St. Luke's Hospital for behavioral health services on
     November 3, 2022 and February 9, 2023 (per Dr. Clark's testimony). She takes medication

     reviewed by a psychiatrist one time per month. She has been receiving counselling through

     PATH and Merakey. The Juvenile believes she would be best served by continuing this

     treatment. However, by all accounts, it did not work for this incident, despite Merakey being

     on scene at the time to essentially talk the Juvenile down from whatever made her threaten to

     kill her parents and to leave the home to "cool off." There was no testimony about what

     additional services could be provided to the Juvenile in the community, and from prior court

     experience, there really are none in Monroe County.

                    We also note that the Juvenile does not have a recent mental health evaluation or

     diagnosis. This can be obtained in placement. Dr. Clark stated he believes she may have

     oppositional defiant disorder, in addition to her earlier diagnosis of ADHD. He also noted she

     takes Zoloff for depression. He was concerned she had a psychotic episode of dissociative rage

     even though not previously diagnosed as being psychotic. The Juvenile's mother could not

     recall all of the names of the medications that the Juvenile took. She also could not remember

     the name of the psychiatrist the Juvenile sees in the community. The sessions with that

     psychiatrist are also once a month by telephone and not in person. It was alluded to by several

     witnesses that the Juvenile suffers from trauma associated with being sexually assaulted in the

                                                    11
                                              1 Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.B. 1925(a).pdf

past. However, it is unclear what is being done specifically to address that trauma. Merakey

was approved for another thirty-two (32) weeks of therapy with the Juvenile. But, Merakey

would not be able to provide a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Such an evaluation

would have to be provided by some other unidentified provider that the Juvenile would have to

willingly participate in to be performed. The Merakey counselling, while sufficient in many
cases, is simply not enough for the needs of the Juvenile at this time, some of which remain

unknown. Treatment at a full-time residential placement can identify those needs, and start to

work through them, especially the trauma the Juvenile has experienced in the past. The needs

of the Juvenile are simply too much at this time to be met in the community.

               While we agree that community-based treatment and placement with her parents

is the least restrictive intervention, it is less than what is necessary at this time. We considered

all of the testimony of all of the witnesses from the disposition hearing, and the adjudication

hearing, finding some more credible and convincing than others, and rendered the decision that

the best placement for the Juvenile at this time is in the North Central Secure facility and with

the evaluations ordered. These and the findings on the record were our reason for the

disposition entered.

ae       Al 13,2o                                                 iu.Ls6N,.
                                                                   l            Clerk of Courts
cc:    District Attorney (LS)
       Public Defender (SB)                                                  APR 1223 ++1:45

                                                                            &cd

                                                  12