In re J.B.

2012 PA Super 42

39 A.3d 421

In the Interest of J.B.Appeal of PG Publishing Company.In the Interest of J.B.Appeal of Trib Total Media, Inc.In the Interest of J.B.Appeal of Newspaper Holdings, Inc., t/d/b/a New Castle News.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Jan. 10, 2012.Filed Feb. 22, 2012.

Frederick N. Frank, Pittsburgh, for PG Publishing, appellant (at 1502).

Ronald D. Barber, Pittsburgh, for Trib Total Media, appellant (at 1503).

James W. Manolis, New Castle, for Newspaper Holdings, appellant (at 1504).James P. Barker, Office of the Attorney General, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.Stephen D. Colafella, Monaca and Dennis A. Elisco, New Castle, for J.B., appellee.BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN and COLVILLE ^*, JJ.OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.:

Appellants, PG Publishing Company, Trib Total Media, Inc., and Newspaper Holdings, Inc., t/d/b/a New Castle News (collectively “the News Media”), each appeal from the single order which denied their respective petitions to intervene in the above-captioned matter. We affirm.

We summarize the history of this case as follows. It is alleged that on February 20, 2009, J.B., who was 11 years old at the time, shot Kenzie Marie Houk in the back of the head. Ms. Houk died from the gunshot wound, and her unborn baby died due to lack of oxygen. The Commonwealth charged J.B. with homicide, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, and homicide of an unborn child, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2603, in the criminal division of the Court of Common Pleas. Counsel for J.B. filed a petition to decertify the matter to juvenile court. The trial court denied the decertification petition.

J.B. took an appeal to the Superior Court, and the matter was remanded to the trial court on March 11, 2011. Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa.Super.2011). On August 23, 2011, the trial court entered an order decertifying the case to the juvenile division. Thereafter, the juvenile court held a status conference and set a date of September 27, 2011 for the adjudication hearing. The juvenile court also ordered the following:

Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6336(d) and (e), the general public shall be excluded from the adjudication hearing. The parties, their counsel, witnesses, the immediate family of the victim (three individuals), any legal counsel for the family of the victim, the victim advocate of the Crisis Shelter, representatives of Lawrence County Juvenile Probation, and the immediate family of the minor (three individuals), shall be admitted by the Court to attend the Hearing.

Juvenile Court Order, 9/15/11.

On September 20, 2011, PG Publishing filed a petition to intervene and a motion to open proceedings. Trib Total Media and Newspaper Holdings each filed similar petitions to intervene and open proceedings. On September 23, 2011, following oral argument, the juvenile court entered an order denying the petitions to intervene and motion to open pursuant to section 6336(d) and (e) of the Juvenile Act. Order of Court, 9/23/11, Docket Entry 121. On September 26, 2011, the News Media collectively filed their notices of appeal. ¹ The Superior Court entered an order staying the juvenile proceedings pending disposition of the appeals.

Our standard of review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny access to judicial proceedings is an abuse of discretion. In the Interest of M.B., 819 A.2d 59, 61 (Pa.Super.2003). In this Commonwealth, there is a presumption, under both the Pennsylvania Constitution and common law, that all court proceedings are open to the public. This presumption extends to not only criminal and civil proceedings but also to juvenile dependency proceedings. See id. (applied in juvenile dependency proceeding); see also, Storms v. O'Malley, 779 A.2d 548, 569 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied, 570 Pa. 688, 808 A.2d 573 (2002) (applied in civil action); and Commonwealth v. Contakos, 499 Pa. 340, 453 A.2d 578 (1983) (plurality) (criminal case application).

Appeal at Docket Number 1502 WDA 2011

We first address the appeal presented at 1502 WDA 2011, wherein PG Publishing presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether this Court's finding in In re M.B., 819 A.2d 59 (Pa.Super.2003) created a brightline distinction between juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency proceedings as to the right of members of the media to access juvenile delinquency proceedings?

2. Whether the [juvenile] court committed an error of law by finding that total closure of a juvenile delinquency proceeding is necessary when a member of the media seeks access to the juvenile delinquency proceeding?

3. Should the media be denied access to the instant juvenile delinquency proceeding as a party with a “proper interest?”

a. Whether the party requesting closure of the proceedings presented sufficient evidence to rebut the constitutional presumption of openness by establishing that closure serves an important governmental interest and that there is no less restrictive way to serve the important governmental interest?

b. Whether the party requesting closure of the proceedings presented sufficient evidence to rebut the common law presumption of openness by establishing that his interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption of openness?

Brief for PG Publishing Company at 7.

At the outset, we offer a brief overview of the relevant law in this area. The Pennsylvania Legislature has set forth the law relating to the care, guidance, control, placement, trial and commitment of delinquent, dependent and neglected children under seventeen years of age in Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act (“Juvenile Act”). 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301–6375.

Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, juveniles are not charged with crimes. Rather, they are charged with committing “delinquent acts.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Under the Juvenile Act, juveniles do not have a trial. They have an adjudicatory hearing. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6303, 6341. If the court finds, on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the child committed the delinquent acts, the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent. The child is not convicted. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341. The Juvenile Act specifically states that an adjudication under its provisions is not a conviction of crime. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6354.

As this Court has explained:

[i]t is true that juvenile courts concern themselves with acts which would be considered criminal if they were committed by adults. Our Legislature, however, has seen fit through the Juvenile Act to authorize separate non-criminal proceedings to adjudicate these matters, precisely because the perpetrators are not adults. [T]hese proceedings are materially different from criminal proceedings in many respects.

In the Interest of R.A., 761 A.2d 1220, 1225 (Pa.Super.2000).

Indeed, the juvenile court system is markedly different from the criminal court system. As we long ago stated, “[t]he Juvenile Court proceedings are not criminal in nature but constitute merely a civil inquiry or action looking to the treatment, reformation, and rehabilitation of the minor child.” Commonwealth v. Henig, 200 Pa.Super. 614, 189 A.2d 894, 896 (1963).

One of the stated goals of the Juvenile Act is to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental development of children. ² In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348, 356 (Pa.Super.2004). The purpose of juvenile proceedings is to seek treatment, reformation and rehabilitation, and not to punish. Id. It cannot be ignored that one of the purposes of the Juvenile Act is to hold children accountable for their behavior. Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 367 (Pa.Super.2008). To this end, the juvenile court system was designed to provide a distinctive procedure and setting to deal with the problems of youth. In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d at 356.

“The rehabilitative purpose of the Juvenile Act is attained through accountability and the development of personal qualities that will enable the juvenile offender to become a responsible and productive member of the community.” In re R.D.R., 876 A.2d 1009, 1013 (Pa.Super.2005) (quoting In re B.T.C., 868 A.2d 1203 (Pa.Super.2005)).

Further, we are mindful that:

[t]here is a compelling interest in protecting minor children's privacy rights and the protection of a minor child's privacy is a key aspect of the Juvenile Act.

In the Interest of T.E.H., 928 A.2d 318, 323 (Pa.Super.2007). This Court has held that “Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act demonstrates our legislature's compelling interest in safeguarding children involved in juvenile proceedings.” In re M.B., 819 A.2d at 65.

The Juvenile Act provides for various degrees of openness in hearings on delinquency petitions. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336. As a general rule, juvenile hearings are closed to all except “the parties, their counsel, witnesses, the victim and counsel for the victim, other persons accompanying a party or a victim for his or her assistance, and any other person as the court finds have a proper interest in the proceeding or in the work of the court.” ³ 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336(d).

However, the public cannot be excluded from delinquency hearings involving (1) any felony allegedly committed by a juvenile of at least 14 years of age, or (2) certain enumerated felonies allegedly committed by a juvenile of 12 or 13 years of age. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336(e). The enumerated felonies are essentially the same as those which are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction.

This Court addressed, as an issue of first impression, the question of whether juvenile proceedings may be closed to the press and general public in In the Interest of M.B. Specifically before the Court in In re M.B. was a matter involving juvenile dependency proceedings, which were initiated after the eight-year-old sister of two minor children was murdered. The Westmoreland County Children's Bureau (“WCCB”) brought a petition alleging that the children were dependents due to a lack of proper parental control. PG Publishing filed a motion seeking to open the juvenile dependency proceedings, which the juvenile court denied. PG...