United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-2138
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
PATRICK V.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. George S. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
Robert E. Mongue on brief for appellant.
July 1, 2004
COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge. At the earlier stage of our
appellate consideration of this case, we concluded that neither we
nor the district court had before us sufficient information about
where Patrick V. would serve his detention time, and the nature of
the services such facility offered - facts which we thought were
relevant to the district court's disposition. So we remanded the
case for completion of the record "as to the location of the
facility of detention, its policies, programs and resources."
United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3, 13 (1st Cir. 2004). We
gave both the court and the parties a difficult task. It was to
assess "not the current care and custody of the appellant,
but...the appropriateness of the detention facility as of the time
of the initial disposition hearing." Id. at 14. In other words,
after a good look at the facility chosen by the Bureau of Prisons,
would the district court reaffirm or alter its disposition?
In a subsequent evidentiary hearing before the district court,
government witnesses included officials of the Cresson Secure
Treatment Unit in Cresson, Pennsylvania (the detention facility in
question), the director of Pennsylvania's Bureau of State Children
and Youth Programs, and an executive of the federal Bureau of
Prisons, Juvenile Services department. Appellant's witnesses were
his mother and a psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Courtney.
The court, in an Amended Disposition Order, reported that the
Cresson Secure Treatment Unit was distanced by 550 miles from
-2-
Patrick's home and has a capacity of fifty-two residents, of whom
only Patrick and one other were presently non-residents of
Pennsylvania. The average stay is 10.2 months. The facility,
staffed by state certified faculty and following a curriculum
complying with state standards, provides a basic education program
that consists in part of standard subjects such as mathematics,
language arts, and social studies, and selected other subjects such
as Life Skills, Parenting, and Anger Management. For students who
have completed the high school curriculum, College Level
Examination Program courses are offered, and students pursuing
these score in the eighty-fifth percentile. Mental health services
of a psychologist and a psychiatrist are made available four hours
a week. Family sessions take place in person or by telephone, the
aim being for one session a week.
Prior to the court's initial disposition, Dr. Courtney
interviewed Patrick and, on his impression of Cresson's programs,
arrived at his conclusion that Cresson was not a good match with
Patrick's needs. The shorter time span of its treatment cycle, its
focus on students with learning difficulties, and his disagreement
with several aspects of its programming, including family therapy
and drug abuse prevention, were his reasons. His testimony at the
hearing on remand was necessarily limited to Patrick's needs as of
the date of the initial hearing.
-3-
Dr. Courtney also submitted a detailed, thirty page
"Psychiatric Evaluation," which was accepted into evidence,
containing recommendations for more intensive drug counseling,
association with "positive peers," more attention to social skills,
strengthening empathy, more intensive family "face to face"
therapy, and use of Multisystem Therapy and Family Focus Therapy.
Twelve possible forms of mental disorders were briefly discussed.
This report obviously sought to prescribe the optimum, if not
the ideal, approach to dealing with Patrick's problems. It also
was based on recent interviews with Patrick and his parents, and a
visit to Cresson. To the extent that it discerns any current
inadequacy of the therapy and rehabilitation offered, it trenches
farther than the limited scope of the district court's legitimate
power at this stage of proceedings - the obtaining of information
relevant to the court's determination of commitment and length of
detention.
Nevertheless, the report is significantly corroborated by the
affidavit of a government witness, James C. Johns, Director of the
Pennsylvania Bureau of State Children and Youth Programs in the
Department of Public Welfare. The Department, he averred, believed
that Patrick's placement at Cresson was "not optimal to ensure his
effective rehabilitation." The typical shorter time span of its
system and the distance from the juvenile's home, limiting parental
-4-
involvement, family counseling, strong judicial oversight, and
regular case reviews were cited as reasons.
The court, while recognizing the criticisms levied, concluded
that the evidence did not indicate that the Cresson facility could
not provide the statutorily required "adequate food, heat, light,
sanitary facilities, bedding, clothing, recreation, counseling,
education, training, and medical care including necessary
psychiatric, psychological, or other care and treatment." See 18
U.S.C. § 5039. It noted that any educational program offered by a
detention facility would necessarily differ from opportunities at
a public or private high school. And it recognized that distance
did make family therapy more difficult, but not insuperable with
telephone or video conferencing.
As a result of its review of the supplemented record, the
court, noting the shorter stays typical at the Cresson facility,
and trying to balance the need for rehabilitation with protection
of the public, reduced the period of detention ordered from thirty
to twenty-four months. We see no abuse of discretion on this
record. We think that this kind of judgment is entirely
appropriate for a judge in a juvenile matter under these
circumstances. We also echo the district court's awareness of the
exclusive authority given the Attorney General in the placement of
juveniles committed to his custody.
-5-
Perhaps of more importance is the court's recommendation that
"the remainder of Patrick's term of detention be served in an
institution located closer to his home in Maine, if possible."
What lends force to this recommendation is that on this record,
there is no dispute. Not only Dr. Courtney but also Mr. Johns,
speaking for the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, have
advanced their reasons for a more appropriate placement. And we
note that no opposing memorandum or comment has been submitted by
the government. We lend our own hope to this recommendation.
Affirmed.
-6-