Court Opinion

ID: 9405447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 16:13:07.804697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.093131
License: Public Domain

J-S09030-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.A.R.C., A          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
                                          :
 APPEAL OF: S.A.R.C.                      :
                                          :
                                          :
                                          :
                                          :   No. 530 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered April 11, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Juvenile Division at No(s):
                         CP-25-JV-0000055-2021

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

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                       FILED: June 28, 2023

      S.A.R.C. appeals from the April 11, 2022 dispositional order committing

her to secure placement at the Danville Center for Adolescent Females at

Youth Development Center North Central Secure (the “Danville Center”). The

order was entered after the juvenile court determined that S.A.R.C.’s initial

placement at another, less restrictive facility should be modified. We affirm.

      By way of background, S.A.R.C. was adjudicated delinquent after

admitting to acts that, if performed by an adult, would constitute unauthorized

use of a motor vehicle. Particularly, S.A.R.C. operated a blue Mazda without

permission of the owner in the area of East 10th Street and Ash Street in Erie,

Pennsylvania. At the time of the acts, S.A.R.C. was residing with her father

in Erie County. In exchange for her admission, the Commonwealth withdrew

additional allegations of receiving stolen property and theft by unlawful taking

relating to the same vehicle.      Thereafter, the juvenile court committed
J-S09030-23

S.A.R.C. to New Outlook Academy, a residential facility located in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania. The juvenile court also ordered that S.A.R.C. pay restitution in

the amount of $1,796.43 plus court costs, perform community service, and

participate in the drug and alcohol treatment program, if medically indicated.

       S.A.R.C. failed to flourish during her stay at New Outlook Academy. In

the span of approximately ten months, she accumulated fifty-seven negative

behavior reports for rule infractions based upon medication misuse, school

tardiness,    harm     to   others,     aggression,   non-compliance,   disruption,

inappropriate peer interactions, disrespecting staff, bullying, and contraband.

Further, she began engaging in grooming behavior toward a fourteen-year-

old student at the center, despite being eighteen years old herself, compelling

staff members to create and present to S.A.R.C. a written safety plan

concerning that student.         S.A.R.C. rejected the proposed safety plan by

signing it “Kiss my Ass.”        Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/22, at 1 (citing N.T.,

4/2/22, at 4). Out of concern for the safety of other students and staff, New

Outlook Academy requested that S.A.R.C. be removed. Thereafter, a team of

placement officers removed S.A.R.C. from the facility.

       During an ensuing dispositional review hearing pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P.

610(b)(4),1 the Commonwealth recommended modification of S.A.R.C.’s

initial placement and dispositional order so as to move her to a more secure

____________________________________________

1 This rule states that “[a] review hearing shall be held within twenty days of
the discharge from the placement facility or request for change in the
dispositional order.” Id.

                                           -2-
J-S09030-23

facility. S.A.R.C., the father of S.A.R.C., and Juvenile Probation Officer Alex

Hromyak testified at the hearing.              At its conclusion, the juvenile court

determined on the record that S.A.R.C. should be placed at the Danville

Center, located in Montour County, Pennsylvania.             The juvenile court also

articulated on the record the reasons for its disposition, together with the

goals, terms, and conditions of that disposition.          Significantly, the juvenile

court found that S.A.R.C. had made minimal progress towards her goals

relating to community protection and developing competencies to become a

productive member of the community.                See Dispositional Review Order,

4/11/22. The court determined that she made moderate progress toward her

accountability goal.     Id.    The juvenile court entered a dispositional review

order on April 11, 2022, memorializing S.A.R.C.’s new placement at the

Danville Center. The dispositional review order articulated the findings of the

juvenile court, including those related to community protection, accountability

for offenses committed, and the development of S.A.R.C.’s competencies to

become a productive member of the community. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 515(A).

       This timely appeal followed.2 S.A.R.C. and the juvenile court complied

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court provided

a thorough analysis addressing its decision for placement at the Danville

____________________________________________

2 We note that S.A.R.C. did not pursue the expedited appeal process by filing
a petition for specialized review of the out-of-home placement pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1612.

                                           -3-
J-S09030-23

Center, including the rationale for the decision and citation to portions of the

record supporting the placement.

          S.A.R.C. presents two inter-related claims on appeal:

     I.     Whether the trial court erred when it determined that Appellant
            needed further “treatment, rehabilitation and/or supervision”
            in a more restrictive facility instead of in a less restrictive
            setting such as a community type of setting (i.e., formal
            probation with outpatient and/or wrap around services) and/or
            an independent living type of placement due to Appellant’s age
            and/or other factors considered by the Trial Court.

    II.     Whether the trial court erred when it determined that
            Appellant’s best placement option was Center for Adolescent
            Females (located in Danville, Pennsylvania), which is further
            from the Juvenile’s home county than other placements that
            could accomplish the same “treatment, supervision and
            rehabilitation” goals that focus on education and/or personal
            safety instead of a less restrictive setting such as a community
            type setting (i.e., formal probation with outpatient and/or wrap
            around services) and/or an independent living type of
            placement due to Appellant[’s] age and/or other factors
            considered by the Trial Court.

S.A.R.C.’s brief at 5.3

          This Court reviews a juvenile court’s dispositional order directing out-

of-home placement for an abuse of discretion. See Interest of D.W., 220
____________________________________________

3  S.A.R.C. discusses both of these issues in a single argument section of her
brief and, more importantly, fails to cite any legal authority to support her
argument, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating that each argument
section shall be “followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are
deemed pertinent”). See also In re C.R., 113 A.3d 328, 336 (Pa.Super.
2015) (holding that where a brief fails to cite to any legal authority, a
reviewing court will not consider the argument). While we would normally
find S.A.R.C.’s issues to be waived because of these violations, we decline to
do so here based on the importance of the issues raised. Nonetheless, counsel
for S.A.R.C. is cautioned to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure in the future.

                                           -4-
J-S09030-23

A.3d 573, 576 (Pa.Super. 2019). 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.” Id. (cleaned

up). Further, “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.” Commonwealth v. K.M.-F., 117 A.3d

346, 351 (Pa.Super. 2015) (cleaned up).

      When a court commits a juvenile to out-of-home placement, the court

is required to state the following on the record in open court:

      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 form
      the basis of its decision consistent with subsection (a) and section
      6301, including the reasons why commitment to that type 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.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(c).

      Similarly, Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D)(4) enumerates the considerations that a

juvenile court must address in its dispositional findings of fact and conclusions

of law when the juvenile is removed from the home. In pertinent part, Rule

512 provides:

      The court shall enter its findings and conclusions of law into the
      record and enter an order pursuant to Rule 515. On the record in
      open court, the court shall state:

            ....

                                       -5-
J-S09030-23

      (4) if the juvenile is removed from the home:

            (a) the name or type of any agency or institution that
            shall provide care, treatment, supervision, or
            rehabilitation of the juvenile;

            (b) its findings and conclusions of law that formed the
            basis of its decision consistent with 42 Pa.C.S.
            §§ 6301 and 6352, including why the court found that
            the out-of–home placement ordered is the least
            restrictive type of placement that is consistent with
            the protection of the public and best suited to the
            juvenile's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation, and
            welfare; and

            (c) the provision of educational services for the
            juvenile pursuant to Rule 148[.]

Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D).

      In its Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing S.A.R.C.’s first issue, the juvenile

court identified the location in the record wherein it explained to S.A.R.C. and

her father, at length in open court, why placement at the Danville Center was

the least restrictive placement necessary and was best suited to S.A.R.C.’s

treatment, supervision, rehabilitation, and welfare.       See Juvenile Court

Opinion, 7/25/22, at 5-8.      The juvenile court also addressed S.A.R.C.’s

arguments that she should have been entitled to less restrictive supervision

due to her age and satisfaction of the court-imposed financial obligations and

community service requirement. See id. at 10-11. Importantly, it found that

S.A.R.C.’s age did not bear on this particular analysis because the court retains

jurisdiction of a delinquent child until age twenty-one, and that despite

completing her community service hours and paying restitution, “there is a

long path ahead o[f] recognition and recovery before probation with

                                      -6-
J-S09030-23

restrictions or an independent-living placement is best suited for [S.A.R.C.]’s

treatment, supervision, rehabilitation, and welfare.” Id.

      As it relates to the juvenile court’s balancing of the Rule 515(a) factors

pertaining to community protection, accountability, and the development of

skills that allow juveniles to contribute to the community, the juvenile court

reasoned as follows:

      [A] secure setting, such as Danville, is the least restrictive
      environment to achieve the goals of community protection and
      competency by supplying sufficient manpower to enforce
      boundaries and by providing [S.A.R.C.] with the appropriate
      therapeutic tools and evidence-based programs to manage her
      behavioral issues. New Outlook Academy’s failed attempts (albeit
      not for a lack of trying) to separate [S.A.R.C.] from other
      students, whom she was reportedly grooming for inappropriate
      romantic relationships, makes manifest the need for a more
      secure setting where separation can be effectively enforced for the
      students’ own safety. Relatedly, such a setting will provide [the
      juvenile] with better treatment options to deal with the underlying
      trauma fueling her inappropriate actions, and healthier ways to
      deal with her attention-seeking behavior.

Id. at 7-8 (citations omitted).

      Additionally, the juvenile court iterated that New Outlook Academy

lacked the resources to provide constructive accountability for S.A.R.C.’s

delinquent conduct, which was evidenced by the fact that S.A.R.C. continually

engaged in inappropriate interactions with students and staff, despite

warnings to stop. See id. at 8. The juvenile court determined that S.A.R.C.’s

behavior warranted placement in a facility with increased structure and

supervision, and that neither independent living nor the imposition of

probation with restrictions would advance her accountability or adequately

                                     -7-
J-S09030-23

protect the community. See id. at 9. The court reasoned, “in neither setting

would [S.A.R.C.] be assured to receive the substantial and focused counseling

and therapeutic treatment she needs in order to heal the trauma ultimately at

the root of this concerning behavior.” Id. As the certified record supports the

juvenile court’s rationale, we do not discern an abuse of discretion.

      S.A.R.C.’s second assertion relates to the location of the Danville Center.

She contends that placement at the Danville Center was inappropriate

because it was farther from her home than other facilities that could provide

the same supervision and treatment. She also argues that placement at the

Danville Center constitutes a hardship due to its location, regardless of the

existence of closer facilities. Preliminarily, we observe that S.A.R.C. did not

assert this particular issue regarding the location of the Danville Center in her

court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Accordingly, the juvenile court

did not have the opportunity to address this argument, and we could consider

it to be waived on that basis.     See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating that

issues not included in a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement are waived).

      Moreover, even in declining to find waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b), we

observe that S.A.R.C. failed to develop these location-based arguments in her

brief. The section of the brief discussing this issue provides, in full, that

      [S.A.R.C.] avers and believes that an immediate release from
      Danville YDC to either formal probation with a combination of . . .
      outpatient services and/or release to an independent living type
      of placement would provide the necessary treatment, supervision
      and rehabilitation needed for [S.A.R.C.]’s case and that said
      placement is closer geographically and allows the

                                      -8-
J-S09030-23

      possibility that their family may visit more often during the
      time of [S.A.R.C.’s] placement.

S.A.R.C.’s brief at 10 (emphasis added). Critically, S.A.R.C. failed to identify

a single facility that could provide the same services as the Danville Center.

She also neglected to state the distance her family must travel to visit her at

the Danville Center, point to any evidence supporting her supposition that the

frequency of family visits may decrease if the transfer is upheld, or cite any

caselaw for the ostensible proposition that increased travel militates against a

juvenile court’s decision to transfer a juvenile to a more secured facility. As

S.A.R.C. failed to develop her argument or provide citation to any pertinent

legal authority, she did not present this Court with a basis to disturb the

juvenile court’s determination for that reason. See In re C.R., 113 A.3d 328,

336 (Pa.Super. 2015) (stating that “[t]his Court will not consider an argument

where an appellant fails to cite to any legal authority or otherwise develop the

issue”).

      To the extent that S.A.R.C.’s brief can be construed as challenging the

juvenile court’s finding that placement at the Danville Center was the least

restrictive placement and best suited to S.A.R.C.’s treatment, supervision,

rehabilitation, and welfare, the certified record belies this assertion. As we

previously discussed, the juvenile court determined that the Danville Center

was the least restrictive environment to serve S.A.R.C.’s welfare and provide

community protection.     Crucially, the juvenile court highlighted that the

Danville Center offers therapeutic programs to help S.A.R.C. manage her

behavior, and more importantly, treat the underlying trauma that drives her

                                     -9-
J-S09030-23

negative behaviors.     In this vein, the juvenile court found that neither

independent living nor probation was appropriate for S.A.R.C because neither

provided the required counseling and therapy.

      As to the protection component of the court’s analysis, the Danville

facility has adequate personnel to maintain appropriate boundaries between

S.A.R.C. and her peers, and to hold S.A.R.C. accountable for her behavior.

Hence, the juvenile court’s disposition treats the very issue that triggered the

need to transfer S.A.R.C. to a more secured facility. Phrased differently, in

contrast to the relative license that S.A.R.C. abused at New Outlook Academy,

she will benefit from a highly structured regimen at the Danville Center.

      In conclusion, the juvenile court fashioned a revised disposition to

address S.A.R.C.’s rehabilitative needs and her potential for treatment, while

balancing the protection of the community and the need to impose

accountability for her delinquent acts. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a); see also

Interest of D.W., supra, at 580-81 (juvenile court did not abuse its

discretion by imposing an out-of-home placement where the record was clear

that juvenile’s treatment and supervision needs could not be satisfied at

home). As the certified record supports the juvenile court’s findings, we find

no abuse of discretion in its decision to place S.A.R.C. at the Danville Center.

      Order affirmed.

                                     - 10 -
J-S09030-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/28/2023

                          - 11 -