In re Interest of D.C.D.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2017
• Docket Number: No. 34 MAP 2016,34 MAP 2016
• Citation: 171 A.3d 727
• Parties: IN the INTEREST OF: D.C.D., a Minor Appeal of: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

171 A.3d 727

IN the INTEREST OF: D.C.D., a Minor

Appeal of: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

No. 34 MAP 2016

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ARGUED: March 8, 2017

DECIDED: October 18, 2017

Thomas L. Kearney III, Esq., James Edward Zamkotowicz, Esq., York County District Attorney's Office, for Appellant.

Bruce Piersoll Blocher, Esq., Anthony J. Tambourino, Esq., York County Public Defender's Office, Gillian Amy Woodward, Esq., for Appellees.

Marsha Levick, Esq., Juvenile Law Center, Emily Lynne Mirsky, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Amicus Curiae parties.

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE BAER

We granted review in this case to consider what constitutes a "compelling reason" for early termination of delinquency supervision under Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 632.¹ After review, we conclude that the Superior Court properly determined that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in granting early termination to the juvenile in this case to allow him to obtain necessary and immediate treatment, after properly taking into account the three aspects of balanced and restorative justice (BARJ) embodied in the Juvenile Act and incorporated into the Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure: "the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed[,] and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community." 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301(b)(2) ("Short title and purposes of chapter"), 6352(a) ("Disposition of delinquent child"); see also Pa.R.J.C.P. 101(C) ("These rules shall be interpreted and construed to effectuate the purposes stated in the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)."). Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment, which affirmed the grant of early termination of delinquency.

At the time of the May 2014 delinquency termination hearing at issue herein, D.C.D. was an intellectually low-functioning and socially immature twelve-year-old boy who was a victim of sexual abuse. To understand the factors at play in the delinquency termination hearing, we first consider D.C.D.'s history in the delinquency system. He originally entered the delinquency system in the fall of 2012, at age ten, due to allegations that he committed indecent assault² against his five-year-old sister.³ Rather than formally adjudicating him delinquent at that time, the juvenile court entered a consent decree pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6340, which allows for the suspension of delinquency proceedings prior to formal adjudication, and placed D.C.D. in a specialized foster care program administered by Pressley Ridge.⁴

In the spring of 2013, a few months after being placed in his first foster care home, D.C.D. was alleged to have left notes of a sexual nature for his foster care home's neighbor in regard to the neighbor's young daughter, which led to a charge of harassment by communication, an act of delinquency which also constituted a violation of his consent decree.⁵ The parties agreed to allow D.C.D. to continue on the original consent decree but transferred him to a second foster home.

While on a home visit to his biological family in July 2013, D.C.D. allegedly attempted to start a fire in his room, which constituted another violation of the consent decree. Soon thereafter, in August of 2013, D.C.D. was found to be dependent due to his parents' inability to provide necessary care or control for reasons not directly related to the issues before this Court. In accord with the finding of dependency, the juvenile court transferred legal and physical custody to the York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (CYF), which would serve as the lead agency, while Juvenile Probation continued to maintain concurrent supervision of D.C.D. pursuant to the consent decree.

In September 2013, following new allegations of inappropriate behavior while living in his second foster home, D.C.D. was removed from that home and temporarily placed in a respite foster care home and subsequently in the shelter care unit at the York County Youth Development Center. At the time, Pressley Ridge, D.C.D.'s foster care provider, indicated that it was unable to provide another foster care placement for him due to his history. Order of 9/11/13. Although the parties agreed that a residential treatment facility (RTF) was necessary for D.C.D., CYF had difficulty finding a bed for him in a RTF given that most of the providers offering services for juvenile sexual offenders and fire-starters did not treat children under twelve. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 9/25/13, at 5. Indeed, D.C.D. remained in shelter care at the youth development center for nearly a month before being accepted and moved into the Sarah Reed Residential Treatment Facility. D.C.D. initially adjusted well to Sarah Reed and observed proper behavioral boundaries, other than a few incidents of not respecting other patients' personal space.

Nevertheless, given that the prior incidents involving the harassment and fire-starting constituted violations of his consent decree, CYF sought a combined placement review and dispositional review hearing, which was held in January 2014. At the hearing, D.C.D. was adjudicated delinquent as he admitted to the acts charged and because the court determined that he was in need of treatment and supervision pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341. Specifically referencing the BARJ factors, the court concluded that continued residential treatment at the Sarah Reed facility was appropriate, as it would provide for community protection, while allowing D.C.D. to develop competencies. Order of 1/28/14 at 4–6. The court also addressed accountability, the third prong of BARJ, by assessing various fees on D.C.D. Id. at 5.

In March 2014, the juvenile court held a hearing to address D.C.D.'s placement following a new allegation of a sexual incident involving a younger resident at Sarah Reed.⁶ At that time, the parties recognized that more residential facilities were available to treat D.C.D. as he had turned twelve. However, some of the facilities were unwilling to accept children who had incidents of fire-starting, and others could not provide services for his level of intellectual functioning. Given the available options, the parties agreed that he should be moved to the Southwood Psychiatric Hospital—Choices Program (Southwood), a RTF which had a bed immediately available and which focused specifically upon his cohort: intellectually low-functioning, sexual offenders.

Despite the parties' agreement to place D.C.D. at Southwood, Southwood informed them that it could not accept him due to his adjudication of delinquency for a sexual offense. According to testimony from the Southwood director, Southwood had an agreement with the township in which it was located not to accept juveniles currently adjudicated delinquent for a sexual offense, but the director stated that they could accept D.C.D. if the delinquency supervision was terminated.⁷

As a result, D.C.D.'s counsel filed a motion for early termination of delinquency supervision under Pa.R.J.C.P. 632,⁸ to which the York County District Attorney objected and requested a hearing. The court scheduled a two-day hearing in May 2014 to address D.C.D.'s dependency placement as well as the motion to terminate delinquency supervision. Prior to the hearing, the parties contacted at least nine potential facilities to attempt to find a suitable treatment facility for D.C.D, which would accept him while he remained "dual adjudicated", i.e., both dependent and delinquent.

At the hearing, all participants other than the District Attorney and Juvenile Probation officer favored termination of delinquency supervision to allow D.C.D. to be transferred to Southwood. In support of termination, D.C.D.'s CYF case manager detailed the various reasons why CYF had determined that Southwood was the only appropriate facility for D.C.D.⁹ N.T., 5/9/14, 46–52, 75–76. The case manager revealed that a few of the facilities contacted refused to accept D.C.D. due to his fire-starting incident or his low IQ level, some facilities were geared toward older adolescent offenders who could prey upon D.C.D., and others did not have any available beds or did not provide the necessary level of supervision. One provider, Valley Youth House, had a bed available but did not have a contract with York County. The CYF case manager testified that placing a child at a facility that did not currently have a contract with the county could take weeks or months because an agreement had to be negotiated between the county and the provider before D.C.D. could be placed. N.T., 5/9/14, at 80.

In contrast to these unacceptable facilities, the case manager explained the benefits of Southwood. She observed that it specialized in providing treatment to low functioning children with sexual abuse offending issues. N.T., 5/9/14, at 53. Southwood additionally provided treatment on campus which would mitigate the problems that arose at Sarah Reed where D.C.D. received only three sessions of sex offender treatment during the approximately six months he was there. N.T., 5/9/14, at 53, 60. She further emphasized that not all residential treatment programs can provide therapy to lower-functioning children, which she viewed as critical to D.C.D. who did not "even understand what he is doing is wrong" and did not "fully understand what was going on [with his body]." N.T., 5/9/14, at 75–76. She testified that she was not aware of any other program that focused on low-functioning juvenile sexual offenders like D.C.D. N.T., 5/9/14, at 78–79.

Testimony by the director of Southwood further supported D.C.D.'s placement at Southwood:

We focus our program to deal specifically with sexually reactive youth in the age range that [D.C.D.] is in, who have experienced some form of trauma history, whether that be reactive attachment or something more severe along those lines, as far as trauma is

...