In re N.E.M.

311 A.3d 1088

In the INTEREST OF: N.E.M.

Appeal of: N.E.M., a Child in Custody

In the Interest of: N.E.M.

Appeal of: N.E.M., a Child in Custody No. 8 EAP 2023

No. 9 EAP 2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: August 25, 2023

Decided: March 21, 2024

Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered on September 28, 2022 at No. 86 EDM 2022 affirming the Order entered on August 11, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division at CP-51-JV-0000789-2022, Jonathan Q. Irvine, Judge

Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered on September 28, 2022 at No. 87 EDM 2022 affirming the Order entered on August 11, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division, at CP-51-JV-0000790-2022, Jonathan Q. Irvine, Judge

Aaron Joshua Marcus, Katherine Ann Muns, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Appellant.

Katherine Eisenhauer Burdick, Esq., Marsha Levick, Esq., Christopher Lin, Esq., Juvenile Law Center, for Appellant Amicus Curiae Juvenile Law Center.

Thomas Matthew Dugan III, Esq., Brandon Paul Ging, Esq., Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office, for Appellant Amicus Curiae Allegheny County Public Defender’s Office.

Maura McInerney, Esq., Margaret McAuslan Wakelin, Esq., Education Law Center PA, for Appellant Amicus Curiae Education Law Center.

Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esq., Samantha Rose Sandfort, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, for Appellee.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DONOHUE

N.E.M. was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to be placed in an out-of-home detention facility. Following this placement, N.E.M. filed a petition for specialized review as provided for by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1612 ("Appellate Rule 1612"),¹ which provides a mechanism for the immediate appeal of out-of-home placements. The Superior Court denied N.E.M.’s petition in a per curiam order. We granted discretionary review to consider whether juveniles have a right to review under Appellate Rule 1612 and whether denial of N.E.M.’s Appellate Rule 1612 petition by per curiam order effectively amounted to a denial of the review provided for by that rule. We answer both questions in the affirmative.

The Rules at Issue

Various rules of court are at issue in these appeals. We begin with a discussion of them to provide a frame of reference for the discussion that follows.

Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 512 ("Rule 512") governs dispositional hearings. Rule 512 is detailed and thorough. It provides comprehensive guidelines to which juvenile courts must adhere in a dispositional hearing; for instance, that the court must receive evidence from both parties, give the juvenile and victim opportunities to be heard, and that an attorney for the Commonwealth must be present. Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(A). Other subsections require that the hearing be recorded and that there be a colloquy and inquiry of post-disposition rights after the court announces the disposition in open court. Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(B),(C). The Rule directs that the colloquy must be in writing and that it must be "substantially" in the form of a template provided within the Rule. Id. Of relevance to the case presently before us, Subsection D addresses the findings that the court is obligated to make on the record. It provides:

D. Court’s Findings. 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:

(1) its disposition;

(2) the reasons for its disposition;

(3) the terms, conditions, and limitations of the disposition; and

(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;

(5) whether any evaluations, tests, counseling, or treatments are necessary;

(6) any findings necessary to ensure the stability and appropriateness of the juvenile’s education, and when appropriate, the court shall appoint an educational decision maker pursuant to Rule 147; and

(7) any findings necessary to identify, monitor, and address the juvenile’s needs concerning health care and disability, if any, and if parental consent cannot be obtained, authorize evaluations and treatment needed.

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

Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 515, "Dispositional Order" ("Rule 515"), requires the juvenile court to issue a written order following an adjudication of delinquency and delineates what the court must include in that order. First among the content requirements is "the courts findings pursuant to Rule 512(D)[.]" Pa. R.J.C.P. 515(a)(1).²

Appellate Rule 1612 is titled "Review of Out-of-Home Placement in Juvenile Delinquency." It provides that when a court orders a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent to be placed in an out-of-home agency or institution, the juvenile "may file a petition for specialized review" within ten days of the order. Pa.R.A.P. 1612(a). The Rule’s remaining subsections delineate the content requirements for the petition, the reviewing court’s scope of review, the timeframe for the filing of a response, service requirements, a requirement for the transcription of notes of testimony within five days of the filing of a petition, and a provision that the failure of a juvenile to utilize the Appellate Rule 1612 review procedure does not result in the waiver of the right to otherwise seek review of the placement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1612(b),(c),(d),(e),(g),(h). For our purposes, we draw particular attention to Subsection (f), "Opinion of juvenile court," which states that when the juvenile court fails to state its reasons for the placement on the record at the time of the disposition as required by Rule 512, the juvenile court must file a statement of the reasons for its disposition within five days of the date the juvenile files an Appellate Rule 1612 petition. See Pa.R.A.P. 1612(f).

Background

This case begins on June 21, 2022, the day N.E.M. was arrested and charged with two delinquency petitions related to conduct that occurred on May 19 and 20, 2022. The petitions alleged that on May 19, while attempting to enter High Road School, N.E.M. broke a glass door, threw a lit cigarette at the school’s principal and threatened school staff members. Delinquency Petition, CP-51-JV-0000789-2022, at 1. On May 22, 2022, N.E.M. was accused of punching a man in the face before driving away in the man’s car. Delinquency Petition, CP-51-JV-0000790-2022, at 1. For both incidents N.E.M. was charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, criminal mischief, robbery, carjacking, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, recklessly endangering another person, and unauthorized use of an automobile.³ Following his arrest, N.E.M, was placed in a juvenile detention center and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for July 1, 2022. Juvenile Court Order, 6/22/2022.

Prior to the adjudicatory hearing, N.E.M. and the Commonwealth reached an agreement pursuant to which N.E.M. would admit to simple assault, criminal mischief, robbery and theft in exchange for the withdrawal of the other charges and immediate release from detention to house restriction with a GPS monitoring bracelet. At the adjudicatory hearing, counsel for N.E.M. informed the juvenile court of the terms of the negotiated agreement and the Commonwealth expressed its support for the agreement. N.E.M. admitted to the charges, as per the terms of the agreement. N.E.M.’s counsel explained that N.E.M. had no prior involvement with the delinquency system and that both incidents occurred during psychotic episodes. Nonetheless, the juvenile court rejected the agreement and refused to release N.E.M. from custody. N.E.M moved to withdraw his admissions, which the court refused. The court subsequently issued orders adjudicating N.E.M. delinquent and scheduling a dispositional hearing for July 11, 2022. Juvenile Court Order, 7/1/2022, at 1-2.

At the dispositional hearing, counsel for N.E.M. and the Commonwealth urged the court to reconsider its rejection of the negotiated agreement, but it refused. The court explained that it found the release of N.E.M. to his home inappropriate because of the severity of the misconduct at issue. Accordingly, the juvenile court ordered that N.E.M. be placed outside of the home. N.T., 7/11/2022, at 8. The final dispositional hearing occurred one month later, at the conclusion of which the juvenile court ordered that N.E.M. be committed to a Department of Public Welfare residential facility. Juvenile Court Order, 8/11/2022, at 1. At neither hearing did the juvenile court receive evidence concerning N.E.M.’s alleged misconduct, nor did it state its reasons for placing N.E.M. out-of-home on the record. The court never explained its reasons for this disposition in a written order. These failures violate the mandates of Rule 512(D).

On August 22, 2022, N.E.M. filed an Emergency Petition for Specialized Review of Out-of-Home Placement in Juvenile Delinquency Matter Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1612 ("Petition for Specialized Review") at each docket number. In the petitions, N.E.M. developed five arguments as to how the juvenile court abused its discretion in its placement determination. Petitions for Specialized Review, 8/22/2022, at 7-24.⁴ These were followed on September 1, 2022 by applications in which N.E.M. asked the Superior Court to...