In re C.B.

241 A.3d 677

In the INTEREST OF: C.B., A Minor

Appeal of: C.B.

No. 948 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted November 4, 2020

Filed November 6, 2020

John L. Lachall, West Chester, for appellant.

Deborah S. Ryan, District Attorney, Nicholas J. Casenta, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, and Erik T. Walschburger, Assistant District Attorney, West Chester, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:

C.B. appeals from the dispositional order¹ adjudicating him delinquent on more than 100 counts of possessing and viewing child pornography² (F-3) on his school-issued computer. The court determined that C.B. was in need of supervision and ordered him to serve a period of probation with conditions tailored to the committed offenses. Specifically, the juvenile court concluded "that there was insufficient credible evidence to the contrary to rebut the statutory presumption within the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(b), that the commission of a felony shall be sufficient to sustain th[e] finding [that a juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation]."³ After careful review, we affirm.

On October 24, 2018, C.B. turned in his school-issued laptop computer to his high school for repairs. At some point during the repair process, it was discovered that child pornography files had been downloaded to the computer. Local authorities were contacted and, on May 15, 2019, the Chester County District Attorney's Office filed a delinquency petition against C.B. for the above-stated crimes and related offenses. The petition alleged that C.B. "us[ed] a school[-]issued laptop [inside his residence, to] knowingly and intentionally view, possess[,] or control videos, photos, computer depiction[s], or other material depicting [ ] children under the age of 18, engaging in prohibited sexual acts or the simulation of such acts." Petition Alleging Delinquency, 5/15/19, at 2. The court held pre-adjudicatory hearings in June and August of 2019, where it ordered that C.B. report to his probation officer and abide by specific conditions. See Pre-Adjudicatory Hearing Order, 6/4/19, at 1; Pre-Adjudicatory Hearing Order, 8/7/19, at 1. At these hearings, C.B. did not admit to any of the offenses alleged in the delinquency petition. Id.

Following an adjudicatory hearing held on November 26, 2019, where the Commonwealth presented eight witnesses, the court found that C.B. had "committed one or more delinquent acts as alleged in the petition" — specifically, 100 counts of possessing and viewing child pornography under section 6312(d). Adjudicatory Hearing Order, 12/3/19, at 1-2; see Pa.R.J.C.P. 408 (ruling on offenses). The court based its finding that C.B. committed the delinquent acts where "approximately 597 depictions of child pornography, many containing graphic sexual abuse and rape of very young pre-pubescent children," some as young as four years old, "as well as approximately 367 videos depicting the same, [had been downloaded] on his school[-]issued computer" under his unique user ID.⁴ Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/20, at 1 n.1; N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/26/19, at 30. The court determined that C.B. acquired, possessed and viewed this child pornography multiple times on his school-issued computer from January 2018 through November 2018. Id. The court deferred its delinquency determination, but set additional conditions for C.B. and ordered that he undergo a forensic screening with a psychologist and meet with a certified therapist.

On January 17, 2020, the court held a hearing to determine whether C.B. was "in need of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation." See Pa.R.J.P. 409(A); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(b). At the hearing, Arian Labenskyj, a licensed professional counselor at Human Services of Chester County, testified that C.B. met with her eleven times⁵ for sex offender treatment from May 15, 2019 through August 1, 2019. N.T. Adjudication/Dispositional Hearing, 1/17/20, at 16-17. At his intake session with Ms. Labenskyj, C.B. told her that he clicked on a link in a chatroom that downloaded zip files of child pornography to his computer and that he viewed the images about three times. Id. at 22, 30-31. At the sessions, Ms. Labenskyj talked with C.B. about grooming behaviors, thought patterns, identifying what is healthy and unhealthy sexual behavior, and why it is inappropriate to view child pornography. Id. at 17-18. Ms. Labenskyj testified that prior to C.B. being charged, he did not understand that his behavior had been illegal. Id. at 18-19. Ms. Labenskyj opined, within a reasonable degree of certainty, that after completing the 11 treatment sessions with her, C.B. was not in need of further sex offender treatment, that the likelihood of him reoffending was low, and that she did not have any concerns about him having "unrestricted, unsupervised internet access a[nymore]." Id. at 37. See id. at 19-20 ("I feel that he understands that viewing child pornography is inappropriate and illegal."). However, Ms. Labenskyj's final report, issued after her eleventh session with C.B. on August 1, 2019, stated that "[C.B.]'s mental health disability^{[6 ]} may be affecting his ability to gain insight into the seriousness of his actions ." Encounter Form by Adriana Labenskyj, LPC, 8/1/19, at 1 (emphasis added).

Jonathan Koestel, a Chester County Juvenile Probation Officer who supervised C.B. in the instant matter, testified that he had met with C.B. in April 2019 and discussed potential outpatient options for his treatment. Id. at 42. Officer Koestel testified that his office ultimately referred C.B. to Ms. Labenskyj for sexual counseling. Id. Officer Koestel testified that in addition to his sexual offender treatment with Ms. Labenskyj, C.B. voluntarily performed 30-40 hours of community service and donated $200-$250 to a center for missing and exploited children. Id. at 42-43. Officer Koestel stated that C.B. had successfully tested negative in all of his pre-adjudication court-ordered urine tests and had complied with all pre-adjudication court recommendations and conditions. Id. at 43. Officer Koestel also noted that since April 2019, C.B. had an excellent school attendance record, no discipline issues, passing grades in all of his classes, and was involved in extracurricular activities associated with his interest in the military. Id. at 43-44. Officer Koestel testified that because C.B. had successfully completed treatment and had no more existing issues at home or school, he is now considered a low risk on both the Youth Level of Service Assessment scale and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II, a risk assessment scale for sex offenders. Id. at 45. Based on this low-risk, Officer Koestel recommended that "if [C.B.] were adjudicated [delinquent] ... [he would] place [C.B.] on probation , ... [have him] submit to DNA processing, pay the DNA processing fee[,] and then also [have him] pay the standard fees associated with the adjudication." Id. (emphasis added). After C.B. successfully completed those recommendations, Officer Koestel would "close this case." Id.

Finally, at the hearing, the court admitted, as a defense exhibit, a forensic report prepared by psychologist, Bruce E. Mapes, Ph.D. The Chester County Juvenile Probation Office had referred C.B. to Dr. Mapes for a forensic screening "to assist [the Probation Office] in identifying the most appropriate interventions [for C.B.]" Forensic Report of Bruce E. Mapes, Ph.D., 12/18/19, at 1. In addition to interviewing C.B. and C.B.'s mother, Dr. Mapes reviewed C.B.'s police referral, court report, school record and recent discharge summary from Ms. Labenskyj. Id. Ultimately, Dr. Mapes concluded that "[in his] opinion[, C.B.] presents a low risk for sexual recidivism and does not require any further treatment or restrictions for sex offender risk [, but] would benefit from further treatment focusing on interpersonal/social relationships[,] although this would not be related to sex offending risk." Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that C.B. was in need of supervision, adjudicated him delinquent on all counts of possessing and viewing child pornography under section 6312(d), and ordered disposition to consist of a period of probation, with conditions, and the payment of costs and restitution.⁷ On January 17, 2020, C.B. filed a timely post-dispositional motion; the court denied the motion on February 26, 2020. C.B. filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. C.B. presents the following issues for our consideration:

(1) Is the juvenile court's decision that [ ] C.B. is in need of continued supervision contrary to the testimony and opinions expressed by:

(a) The testimony and report of Ariana T. Labenskyj, L.P.C.[;]

(b) The report of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes[; and]

(c) The testimony and report of Juvenile Probation Off[ic]er Jonathan Koestel?

(2) Is the decision of the juvenile court [that] ... C.B. is in need of supervision in error inasmuch as the Commonwealth presented no evidence or reports that C.B. was in need of continued supervision?

(3) If there is any applicable statutory presumption concerning treatment, supervision or rehabilitation of C.B.[,] was it clearly and compellingly overcome by the testimony and report of Ariana Labenskyj, the report of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes, and the testimony and report of Juvenile Probation Officer Jonathan Koestel?

Appellant's Brief, at 3-4.

"The Juvenile Act grants juvenile courts broad discretion when determining an appropriate disposition[.] We will disturb a juvenile court's disposition only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion." In re T.L.B. , 127 A.3d 813, 817 (Pa. Super. 2015). An adjudication of delinquency requires the juvenile court to find that the juvenile: (1) has committed a delinquent act and (2) is in need of treatment,...