Court Opinion

ID: 9960150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 16:11:13.453757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.053715
License: Public Domain

J-M02001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: C.S.G., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: C.S.G.                            :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 5 WDM 2024

                     Appeal from the December 21, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-26-JV-0000212-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                   FILED: April 15, 2024

       C.S.G., a minor (“Petitioner”), files a “Petition for Specialized Review (in

the Nature of a Request to Review an Out of Home Placement Order, Pursuant

to Pa.R.A.P. 1612)” (“Petition”).         Petitioner argues that the juvenile court

abused its discretion when it entered its January 4, 2024 order placing

Petitioner in a secure rehabilitation facility. Finding that the juvenile court did

not abuse its discretion, we affirm the order.

       The facts of this case are as follows. Petitioner was originally charged

as an adult with voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and recklessly

endangering another person,1 stemming from the July 19, 2021 death of the

eighteen-year-old victim.        The trial court granted Petitioner’s request for

decertification, transferring the matter to juvenile court.        On January 27,
____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2503(b), 2702(a)(1), 2705.
J-M02001-24

2023, the juvenile court determined that Petitioner committed the offenses,

adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to Abraxas Youth Center

Secure ReSET Program (“Abraxas”).2

       At Petitioner’s August 3, 2023 review hearing, reports from Abraxas and

the Fayette County Juvenile Probation Department (“Juvenile Probation”)

indicated that Petitioner was excelling at Abraxas. The juvenile court ordered

Petitioner to remain in his current placement until successful completion of his

treatment goals and program requirements. Petitioner completed his required

programming and a disposition review hearing was scheduled for December

21, 2023. Prior to the hearing, Juvenile Probation issued a report detailing

Petitioner’s success and recommending that Petitioner be released from

Abraxas to the custody of his family while remaining under the supervision of

Juvenile Probation and on home electronic monitoring. The report also noted

that the family of the victim did not agree with the proposed discharge from

custody.     Additionally,     Juvenile        Probation   prepared   an   alternative

recommendation suggesting that the juvenile court transfer Petitioner to

George Junior Republic, a less restrictive program closer Petitioner’s

residence.

       At the December 21, 2023 review hearing, the lead case manager at

Abraxas testified that Petitioner had done “phenomenal” at Abraxas,
____________________________________________

2 Prior to his placement at Abraxas, Petitioner spent eight months in the
Fayette County jail, followed by ten months on electronic monitoring, without
any behavioral issues reported. Petitioner maintained employment as a
landscaper while on electronic monitoring.

                                           -2-
J-M02001-24

successfully completing his clinical, behavioral, and educational programs.

See N.T. Review Hearing, 12/21/23, at 5, 8. The lead case manager noted

that Petitioner had a 4.0 grade point average and recommended that

Petitioner be released into the care of his mother.      Id. at 8. The victim’s

father testified, objecting to Petitioner’s release to his family based upon the

severity of the crime committed and the relatively brief length of time

Petitioner had been in care. Id. at 10-11. Finally, Petitioner’s probation officer

detailed the alternative recommendations that she listed in her report,

explaining that if the juvenile court decided to place Petitioner at George Junior

Republic, he could have home visits, “would engage in individual and group

counseling sessions, he would also participate in credit recovery … and

eventually begin the step[-]down process.” Id. at 12-19. Petitioner provided

a statement to the court, expressing his remorse to the victim’s family and

stating that he thinks about the terrible result of his actions daily, making

“every day … a challenge to [his] day[-]to[-]day life.” Id. at 19-20.

      Thereafter, Petitioner’s counsel argued that Petitioner should be

released to his mother’s care because he completed all program requirements

and no further rehabilitation goals could be achieved by keeping Petitioner in

a secure facility.     Id. at 20-22, 24—25.         While the Commonwealth

acknowledged Petitioner’s progress, it argued that the seriousness of the

crime warranted further supervision in a secure facility. Id. at 23-24.

      At the conclusion of the December 21, 2023 review hearing, the juvenile

court acknowledged Petitioner’s success at Abraxas and the victim’s family’s

                                      -3-
J-M02001-24

disagreement with the recommendation to release Petitioner from placement.

It further stated that Juvenile Probation included the alternative placement

option at the court’s request, noting that Juvenile Probation did not agree that

Petitioner continued to require a secure placement. Id. at 25, 26.

      Although the juvenile court stated that Petitioner received “one of the

best progress reports” the court had ever read, the court found that it was too

soon to release Petitioner to his family because of the seriousness of the crime

for which he had been adjudicated, noting that Petitioner would have likely

served five to ten years of incarceration if he had been tried as an adult for

the same crime. Id. at 25-32. When Petitioner’s counsel argued that the

juvenile court was improperly fashioning its decision to punish Petitioner,

rather than to rehabilitate him, the juvenile court stated, “Yeah, I probably

am. … I’m just not happy sending him home, just yet. … I think the George

Junior alternative is the direction I wanna go in.” Id. at 27.

      Counsel for Petitioner further argued that there was no testimony that

there is anything left for Petitioner to accomplish in an out-of-home placement

and the juvenile court again stated that it was “look[ing] at the seriousness

of [the offense].” Id. at 28. After Petitioner’s counsel further pressed the

court to state, on the record, what was left for Petitioner to accomplish prior

to his release, the court responded, “I’d like to get some home visits done[.]”

Id. at 30.    The juvenile court thus ordered that Petitioner successfully

complete a minimum of two home passes prior to discharge, with the passes

to begin as soon as possible or as deemed appropriate by the George Junior

                                     -4-
J-M02001-24

Republic staff and Juvenile Probation. Petitioner’s next scheduled hearing date

is on or after June 1, 2024.

       Counsel for Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition on January 12,

2024, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1612, which provides for expedited appellate

review of out-of-home placement in juvenile delinquency matters.           The

Petition complies with the requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1612(b). By

Order dated January 19, 2024, this Court directed the Commonwealth to file

an answer on or before January 22, 2024. The Commonwealth failed to file a

response. On February 16, 2024, we directed the juvenile court to provide

this Court with the notes of testimony from the December 21, 2023 review

hearing and file a brief statement of reasons for its out-of-home placement

order within five days.         This Court did not receive the juvenile court’s

statement of reasons or a transcript of the December 21, 2023 hearing until

March 4, 2024. We now proceed to review the Petition on its merits.3

                                    ***
          Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1612(c), this Court “shall not consider any

challenge to the juvenile court’s selection of a specific agency or specific

institution as the site of the out-of-home placement and instead may consider

____________________________________________

3 During this Court’s consideration of the instant Petition, the Supreme Court

of Pennsylvania filed its decision in In the Interest of: N.E.M., Appeal of:
N.E.M., a Child in Custody, __ A.3d, __, 2024 WL 1202392 (Pa. Mar. 21,
2024). The Court held that a Pa.R.A.P. 1612 petition is not discretionary and
operates to expedite the appeal process for juvenile out-of-home placement
dispositions. Id. at *9.

                                           -5-
J-M02001-24

only a challenge to the fact that the placement is out-of-home.” Pa.R.A.P.

1612(c)(1).   Further, this Court “shall not consider any challenge to the

underlying adjudication of delinquency.” Pa.R.A.P. 1612(c)(2). This Court’s

standard of review is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in its

dispositional order. See In re A.D., 771 A.2d 45, 53 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en

banc) (“Finding that the court properly considered the information presented

to it and fashioned a disposition it believed best suited the circumstances

involved, we perceive of no manifest abuse of discretion which would cause

us to disturb its order.”). The juvenile court is granted broad discretion in

implementing its disposition. In re Love, 646 A.2d 1233, 1238 (Pa. Super.

1994).

      [T]he discretion of the Juvenile Court in implementing a
      disposition is broad, it is flexible and the Juvenile Court has
      considerable power to review and modify the commitment, taking
      into account the rehabilitative progress or lack of it of the juvenile.
      Without extreme specificity as to the error by the court in
      imposing the commitment, there can be no basis for setting aside
      the disposition.

Id. at 1238 n.5.

      Pursuant to section 6352(a) of the Juvenile Act, the juvenile court’s

disposition must “be consistent with the protection of the public interest and

best suited to the child’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare[.]”

42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a).     The court must “provide balanced attention to the

protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses

                                       -6-
J-M02001-24

committed and the development of competencies to enable the child to

become a responsible and productive member of the community.” Id.

      When committing a juvenile to out-of-home placement, the judge must

state on the record in open court

      the reasons for its disposition . . . , together with the goals, terms
      and conditions of that disposition. If the child is to be committed
      to out-of-home placement, the court shall also state the name of
      the specific facility or type of facility to which the child will be
      committed and its findings and conclusions of law that formed the
      basis of its decision consistent with subsection (a) and section
      6301, including the reasons why commitment to that facility or
      type of facility was determined to be 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.

Id. § 6352(c). Section 6301 further specifies that a child should be separated

from his or her parents “only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health

or in the interests of public safety[.]” Id. § 6301(b)(3). The Juvenile Act

directs the juvenile court to employ 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.” Id. § 6301(b)(3)(i).

      Petitioner alleges that the juvenile court misapplied the Juvenile Act.

His argument is two-fold.    First, he asserts that the juvenile court did not

present the reasons for transferring him from Abraxas to George Junior

Republic on the record.      Petition for Specialized Review, 1/12/24, at 6

(unpaginated). He also contends the juvenile court’s disposition was not a

                                      -7-
J-M02001-24

balanced   consideration    of   community     protection,   accountability,   and

rehabilitation. See id., at 5-6. Instead, he argues that the juvenile court

improperly focused on punishment, when the record reflected that Petitioner

no longer posed a threat to the community and had taken accountability for

his actions.   In Petitioner’s view, the juvenile court’s decision was not the

“least restrictive intervention” contemplated by the Juvenile Act and was,

therefore, an abuse of discretion. Id. at 6.

      Upon our review of the notes of testimony, we agree with Petitioner that

the juvenile court ordered an out-of-home placement without stating its

reasons on the record at the time of the hearing, contrary to section 6352(c).

At the hearing, the main reasons given by the court—the seriousness of the

crime and the likely sentence Petitioner would have received if convicted as

an adult—largely sounded in punishment. See N.T., 12/21/23, at 24-25.

While the seriousness of the crime is relevant to the placement decision as it

relates to the protection of the public, Petitioner correctly notes that the

juvenile court is also to consider the juvenile’s accountability and his

treatment and rehabilitative needs when committing the juvenile to out-of-

home placement, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(3)(i), which the court only briefly

addressed in its desire to have Petitioner complete home visits. Further, Rule

512(D) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure requires that

when a juvenile court determines a juvenile needs treatment, supervision, and

rehabilitation, that it place its findings and conclusions of law on the record by

                                      -8-
J-M02001-24

announcing them orally in court, followed by a written order. See Pa.R.J.C.P.

512(D), cmt.

       The juvenile court’s failure to state the requisite findings and reasoning

on the record at the hearing, however, does not require automatic reversal.

In Commonwealth v. K.M.-F., 117 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2015), this Court

reviewed a petition for review filed pursuant to then-Pa.R.A.P. 1770.4 The

petitioner argued that the juvenile court erred because, in relevant part, it did

not specifically state on the record why out-of-home placement was the least

restrictive alternative, as required by the Juvenile Act. K.M.-F, 117 A.3d at

350. In response, this Court recognized the juvenile court’s error, but found

that because the placement programs were outlined by the juvenile probation

officer at the hearing and the juvenile court subsequently stated its reasons

for out-of-home placement, it did not require reversal. Id. at 351-52.

____________________________________________

4 In 2015, Pa.R.A.P. 1770 provided for an aggrieved party to file a petition for

review of an out-of-home placement in juvenile delinquency matters. “The
substance of that rule is now found in Pa.R.A.P. 1612.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1770,
note.

Although in N.E.M. our Supreme Court cited K.M.-F. with disapproval because
it treated petitions for specialized review under Rule 1770 as discretionary,
see Interest of N.E.M., 2024 WL 1202392, at *8, it did not disavow this
Court’s analysis of the merits of the case and its finding that the record
supported the juvenile court’s decision. Because Pa.R.A.P. 1612 incorporates
the operative language from former Pa.R.A.P. 1770, we conclude that K.M.-
F. retains its precedential authority in matters pertaining to Rule 1612
petitions. Compare Pa.R.A.P. 1612 (2024), with Pa.R.A.P. 1770 (2015).

                                           -9-
J-M02001-24

       Likewise, in Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019),5 the

juvenile court ordered out-of-home placement for the petitioner but did not

state its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record at the hearing.

After the petition for review was filed, this Court directed the juvenile court to

enter a statement of reasons for its order, and the juvenile court complied.

This Court relied on the juvenile court’s written statement of reasons in

determining that petitioner’s claims were without merit. We also noted that

although “the juvenile court neglected to explicitly delineate the reasons for

finding that out-of-home commitment was the least restrictive placement

alternative,” the reasons were clear from the record. Id. at 580. Accordingly,

we affirmed the juvenile court’s order on the merits.

       Finally, we observe that Pa.R.A.P. 1612(f) provides:

       Upon receipt of a copy of a petition for specialized review under
       paragraph (a), if the judge who made the disposition of the
       out-of-home placement did not state the reasons for such
       placement on the record at the time of disposition pursuant
       to Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D), the judge shall file of record a brief
       statement of the reasons for the determination or where in the
       record such reasons may be found, within five days of service of
       the petition for specialized review.

Pa.R.A.P. 1612(f) (emphasis added).            The note to Rule 1612 adds that

“paragraph (f) of this rule is applicable only in the exceptional circumstance

____________________________________________

5 The N.E.M. Court was similarly critical of Interest of D.W. in its decision.

See Interest of N.E.M., 2024 WL 1202392, at *8. For the reasons stated
above, we conclude that like K.M.-F., D.W. retains its precedential value on
the merits of the decision. See Int. of D.W., 220 A.3d at 579 n.6.

                                          - 10 -
J-M02001-24

where the judge who made the disposition of an out-of-home placement fails

to comply with Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D).” Id., note. The rule thus contemplates

the precise circumstances present in this case, allowing the juvenile court to

supplement its on-the-record reasoning with a written decision explaining the

basis for its disposition.

      Here, in its March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, the juvenile court

elaborated on its decision to continue Petitioner’s out-of-home placement at a

new facility, focusing its reasoning on Petitioner’s rehabilitative needs. The

juvenile court explained that during his time at Abraxas, Petitioner had no

overnight visits with his family nor did he visit his parents’ home. Op., at 3.

The juvenile court concluded that Petitioner had no significant, unstructured

periods of time outside the Abraxas facility, and thus had not been subjected

to the stresses that he would confront and with which he would need to cope

when he returns to his home community. Id. The juvenile court opined that

a premature return could jeopardize Petitioner’s continued, positive progress.

Id. at 3-4.

      Additionally, a community service program for Petitioner had not yet

been established. The court also wanted to afford Petitioner an opportunity

to recover educational credits lost due to Petitioner’s lengthy incarceration

while the petition to decertify was pending, and the court cited George Junior

Republic’s excellent reputation for enabling students to recover lost

educational credits. Id. at 4.

                                    - 11 -
J-M02001-24

      Finally, the juvenile court explained that it considered Petitioner’s

success at Abraxas and authorized the issuance of home passes in an

expedited timeframe.     Id. at 4-5. The court concluded that, barring any

unforeseen circumstances, Petitioner could be released to the care of his

mother at the conclusion of the next review hearing. Id., at 5. Additionally,

Juvenile Probation had provided an on-the-record explanation of the

programing available to Petitioner at George Junior Republic. See N.T. Hr’g,

12/21/23, at 13.

      Regarding Petitioner’s objection to the juvenile court’s reliance on the

seriousness of the offense, we agree that the Juvenile Act does not specifically

include this as a factor to consider when a juvenile court renders its decision

concerning a juvenile’s placement. The Juvenile Act does, however, require

the juvenile court to consider the protection of the community as a factor in

its decision ordering out-of-home placement.      See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a).

Further, in its March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, the juvenile court

addressed Petitioner’s rehabilitative needs as outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(c)

and Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D). The juvenile court found that Petitioner needed “to

complete multiple successful home passes prior to any full community release,

be afforded an opportunity to continue with his educational path, that he

attempt credit recovery, as well as prepare his transitional plans for eventual

release.” Op., at 5.

                                     - 12 -
J-M02001-24

      In addition, as in K.M.-F., Juvenile Probation provided an explanation

of the therapeutic and rehabilitative services that will be provided to Petitioner

at George Junior Republic. N.T., 12/21/23, at 14. In addition to the home

passes and credit recovery program noted by the juvenile court, Petitioner will

have continued therapy, which is particularly salient in light of Petitioner’s

acknowledgement of the devastating impact his crime has had on him.

      Upon review of the Petition, the notes of testimony, and the juvenile

court’s March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, we find no manifest abuse of

discretion in the juvenile court’s placement directive. See In re A.D., 771

A.2d at 53. The juvenile court is given broad discretion to fashion an out-of-

home placement order and the record supports the juvenile court decision to

continue Petitioner’s out-of-home placement. The trial court considered

Petitioner’s rehabilitative, therapeutic, and supervision needs, his progress

and accountability as well as the need for community protection and

Petitioner’s needs to successfully transition home. See In re Love, 646 at

1238. We decline to disturb the juvenile court’s assessment of the further

support Petitioner needs to complete that transition, and we therefore affirm

its order.

      Order affirmed.

                                      - 13 -
J-M02001-24

DATE: 04/15/2024

                   - 14 -