In re T.N.A.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.N.A, A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.N.A., A MINOR

No. 939 EDA 2023

No. J-S30023-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 7, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered March 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s) CP-45-JV-0000026-2023

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

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

MEMORANDUM

LAZARUS, J.

T.N.A., a fifteen-year-old minor, appeals^[1] from the disposition order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, placing her in an out-of-home detention facility. T.N.A. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion, claiming that, based on the expert testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Clark, family testimony, and the availability of community-based treatment, this was not the least restrictive treatment available. After our review, we affirm based on the trial court opinion authored by the Honorable David J. Williamson.

T.N.A. was adjudicated delinquent on charges of aggravated assault, criminal mischief, simple assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and harassment as a result of an incident in February 2023. At that time, T.N.A. was on probation for an incident at Pocono Mountain West High School, during which she had threatened school personnel, made homicidal threats regarding her parents, physically assaulted the dean of students, and had to be restrained by police. T.N.A. was found in violation of probation as a result of the new charges.

Following an adjudicatory/disposition hearing, the court determined T.N.A. was in need of treatment and ordered placement at North Central Secure Treatment Unit, stating it was "the least restrictive type of placement that is consistent with the protection of the public and best suited to [T.N.A.'s] treatment, supervision, rehabilitation, and welfare." See

Adjudicatory/Disposition Hearing Order, 3/10/23.^[2]

T.N.A. raises one issue on appeal:

Is it an abuse of discretion when the trial court, based solely upon the Juvenile Probation Department's recommendation, removed [T.N.A.] from her home, when T.N.A.'s mother, her family therapist, and an expert in adolescent behavioral psychology all testified at her dispositional hearing that secure detention was not the least restrictive means available to meet T.N.A.'s needs?

Appellant's Brief, at 3.

We review "a juvenile court's dispositional order directing out-of-home placement for an abuse of discretion." Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d 573, 576 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). We will not disturb the disposition implemented by juvenile court absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 681 (Pa. Super. 2012). "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." Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d at 576 (internal brackets and citation omitted). Moreover, we note that, "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." Id. (citation omitted). See also Interest of C.B., 241 A.3d 677, 681 (Pa. Super. 2020) (juvenile courts afforded broad discretion to craft appropriate disposition).

Section 6352 of the Juvenile Act sets forth six dispositional options for juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent, including placement on supervision and commitment to a facility for delinquent children. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6352(a). In choosing among these alternatives, a juvenile court must consider which dispositional alternative is

consistent with the protection of the public interest and best suited to the child's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare, which disposition shall, as appropriate to the individual circumstances of the child's case, provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable the child to become a responsible and productive member of the community[.]

Id. Further, when a disposition involves an out-of-home placement, the juvenile court must explain on the record why such commitment is "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.A. § 6352(c). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(3)(i) (disposition "separating the child from parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health or in the interests of public safety, by doing all of the following: (i) employing evidence-based practices whenever possible and, in the case of a delinquent child, by using the least restrictive intervention that is consistent with the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the rehabilitation, supervision and treatment needs of the child").

Here, the court heard testimony from T.N.A.'s mother, T.N.A.'s family therapist, T.N.A.'s probation officer, Patrol Officer Austin Price, and Dr. Andrew Clark, psychiatrist and section chief of the adolescent behavioral health unit at St. Luke's Hospital, who had treated T.N.A. for two inpatient admissions on November 3, 2022, and on February 9, 2023. After consideration of the testimony from the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings, the juvenile court concluded that community-based treatment and placement with her parents was "less than what is necessary at this time." Trial Court Opinion, 4/12/23, at 12. See also id. at 10-11 (noting T.N.A.'s lack of self-awareness and remorse, stating "[w]hether her actions are due to prior trauma and dissociative rage or some other mental health condition, or simply reactive behavioral issues, [T.N.A.] needs more help than what has been provided in the community[,]" and disagreeing with recommendations of "more of the same").

We defer to the juvenile court's credibility determinations, D.W., supra, and conclude that the court's findings are well-supported by the record. We find no manifest abuse of discretion. R.D., supra. Accordingly, we affirm the court's order based on Judge Williamson's opinion. We direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925(a)

David J. Williamson, J

The Juvenile having filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal with the Notice of Appeal filed April 5,2023, regarding disposition in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, this opinion follows:

The Juvenile in this matter, T N A ("Juvenile") was the subject of an adjudication hearing held on March 10,2023. The Juvenile is a 15 year old female (DOB 2/T/08) who was charged with two (2) counts of Aggravated Assault (F2), one (1) count of Criminal Mischief (F3), two (2) counts of Simple Assault (M2), one (1) count of Resisting Arrest (M2), one (1) count of Disorderly Conduct (M3), and two (2) counts of Harassment (S) for an incident that occurred in early February 2023.

At the time of this incident, the Juvenile was already on probation due to an August 30,2022 incident at the Pocono Mountain West High School in which the Juvenile became combative with school staff and the school Resource Officer (case #157 JUV 2022). At that time, the Juvenile had made threats to school personnel that she wanted to kill her parents. She then physically assaulted Dr. Morrell, the Dean of Students, and Officer Wile, the school Resource Officer, who tried to talk to her and cairn her down. The Juvenile continued to assault additional staff and police officers called to the scene. She was eventually secured in handcuffs and placed in the back of a police Vehicle. The Juvenile slipped her hands out of the handcuffs and then she attempted to flee when Officer Wile opened the vehicle door to secure the Juvenile. The Juvenile then began kicking the door and windows of the police vehicle. She did not stop until an officer sprayed her with "OC" (mace/pepper spray) and EMS arrived on the scene. The Juvenile eventually entered an admission to simple assault in that matter and was placed on probation for a minimum period of one year and ordered to attend the PATH day treatment program full-time and to engage in individual and family counselling. The YLS Assessment Summary compiled by the Monroe County Juvenile Probation Department for that incident totaled 17, or at the high end of the moderate range to re-offend.

Due to the new charges in this case, the Juvenile was scheduled for an adjudication hearing on the new charges and for a probation violation hearing on the prior case (#157 Juv. 2022) to be heard together on February 27,2023. At the time of the February 27, 2023 hearing, the adjudication hearing in the current case was continued at the request of counsel and re-scheduled to March 10,2023. Following a brief hearing on February 27,2023 on the probation violation, the Juvenile was found to be in violation of the terms of her probation due to the new charges in this case, threats of harm to her parents that the Juvenile made to her Probation Officer, Brian Holley, and for leaving her house without permission.^[1] A re-disposition as a result of the probation violation was deferred pending a final adjudication hearing in this matter. See #157 JUV. 2022.

At the adjudication hearing in this matter, held on March 10,2023 Officer Price of the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department testified that he and another officer were dispatched because the...