J-M02001-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: C.S.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.S.G. :
:
:
:
: No. 5 WDM 2024
Appeal from the December 21, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-JV-0000212-2022
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: April 15, 2024
C.S.G., a minor (“Petitioner”), files a “Petition for Specialized Review (in
the Nature of a Request to Review an Out of Home Placement Order, Pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1612)” (“Petition”). Petitioner argues that the juvenile court
abused its discretion when it entered its January 4, 2024 order placing
Petitioner in a secure rehabilitation facility. Finding that the juvenile court did
not abuse its discretion, we affirm the order.
The facts of this case are as follows. Petitioner was originally charged
as an adult with voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and recklessly
endangering another person,1 stemming from the July 19, 2021 death of the
eighteen-year-old victim. The trial court granted Petitioner’s request for
decertification, transferring the matter to juvenile court. On January 27,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2503(b), 2702(a)(1), 2705.
J-M02001-24
2023, the juvenile court determined that Petitioner committed the offenses,
adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to Abraxas Youth Center
Secure ReSET Program (“Abraxas”).2
At Petitioner’s August 3, 2023 review hearing, reports from Abraxas and
the Fayette County Juvenile Probation Department (“Juvenile Probation”)
indicated that Petitioner was excelling at Abraxas. The juvenile court ordered
Petitioner to remain in his current placement until successful completion of his
treatment goals and program requirements. Petitioner completed his required
programming and a disposition review hearing was scheduled for December
21, 2023. Prior to the hearing, Juvenile Probation issued a report detailing
Petitioner’s success and recommending that Petitioner be released from
Abraxas to the custody of his family while remaining under the supervision of
Juvenile Probation and on home electronic monitoring. The report also noted
that the family of the victim did not agree with the proposed discharge from
custody. Additionally, Juvenile Probation prepared an alternative
recommendation suggesting that the juvenile court transfer Petitioner to
George Junior Republic, a less restrictive program closer Petitioner’s
residence.
At the December 21, 2023 review hearing, the lead case manager at
Abraxas testified that Petitioner had done “phenomenal” at Abraxas,
____________________________________________
2 Prior to his placement at Abraxas, Petitioner spent eight months in the
Fayette County jail, followed by ten months on electronic monitoring, without
any behavioral issues reported. Petitioner maintained employment as a
landscaper while on electronic monitoring.
-2-
J-M02001-24
successfully completing his clinical, behavioral, and educational programs.
See N.T. Review Hearing, 12/21/23, at 5, 8. The lead case manager noted
that Petitioner had a 4.0 grade point average and recommended that
Petitioner be released into the care of his mother. Id. at 8. The victim’s
father testified, objecting to Petitioner’s release to his family based upon the
severity of the crime committed and the relatively brief length of time
Petitioner had been in care. Id. at 10-11. Finally, Petitioner’s probation officer
detailed the alternative recommendations that she listed in her report,
explaining that if the juvenile court decided to place Petitioner at George Junior
Republic, he could have home visits, “would engage in individual and group
counseling sessions, he would also participate in credit recovery … and
eventually begin the step[-]down process.” Id. at 12-19. Petitioner provided
a statement to the court, expressing his remorse to the victim’s family and
stating that he thinks about the terrible result of his actions daily, making
“every day … a challenge to [his] day[-]to[-]day life.” Id. at 19-20.
Thereafter, Petitioner’s counsel argued that Petitioner should be
released to his mother’s care because he completed all program requirements
and no further rehabilitation goals could be achieved by keeping Petitioner in
a secure facility. Id. at 20-22, 24—25. While the Commonwealth
acknowledged Petitioner’s progress, it argued that the seriousness of the
crime warranted further supervision in a secure facility. Id. at 23-24.
At the conclusion of the December 21, 2023 review hearing, the juvenile
court acknowledged Petitioner’s success at Abraxas and the victim’s family’s
-3-
J-M02001-24
disagreement with the recommendation to release Petitioner from placement.
It further stated that Juvenile Probation included the alternative placement
option at the court’s request, noting that Juvenile Probation did not agree that
Petitioner continued to require a secure placement. Id. at 25, 26.
Although the juvenile court stated that Petitioner received “one of the
best progress reports” the court had ever read, the court found that it was too
soon to release Petitioner to his family because of the seriousness of the crime
for which he had been adjudicated, noting that Petitioner would have likely
served five to ten years of incarceration if he had been tried as an adult for
the same crime. Id. at 25-32. When Petitioner’s counsel argued that the
juvenile court was improperly fashioning its decision to punish Petitioner,
rather than to rehabilitate him, the juvenile court stated, “Yeah, I probably
am. … I’m just not happy sending him home, just yet. … I think the George
Junior alternative is the direction I wanna go in.” Id. at 27.
Counsel for Petitioner further argued that there was no testimony that
there is anything left for Petitioner to accomplish in an out-of-home placement
and the juvenile court again stated that it was “look[ing] at the seriousness
of [the offense].” Id. at 28. After Petitioner’s counsel further pressed the
court to state, on the record, what was left for Petitioner to accomplish prior
to his release, the court responded, “I’d like to get some home visits done[.]”
Id. at 30. The juvenile court thus ordered that Petitioner successfully
complete a minimum of two home passes prior to discharge, with the passes
to begin as soon as possible or as deemed appropriate by the George Junior
-4-
J-M02001-24
Republic staff and Juvenile Probation. Petitioner’s next scheduled hearing date
is on or after June 1, 2024.
Counsel for Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition on January 12,
2024, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1612, which provides for expedited appellate
review of out-of-home placement in juvenile delinquency matters. The
Petition complies with the requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1612(b). By
Order dated January 19, 2024, this Court directed the Commonwealth to file
an answer on or before January 22, 2024. The Commonwealth failed to file a
response. On February 16, 2024, we directed the juvenile court to provide
this Court with the notes of testimony from the December 21, 2023 review
hearing and file a brief statement of reasons for its out-of-home placement
order within five days. This Court did not receive the juvenile court’s
statement of reasons or a transcript of the December 21, 2023 hearing until
March 4, 2024. We now proceed to review the Petition on its merits.3
***
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1612(c), this Court “shall not consider any
challenge to the juvenile court’s selection of a specific agency or specific
institution as the site of the out-of-home placement and instead may consider
____________________________________________
3 During this Court’s consideration of the instant Petition, the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania filed its decision in In the Interest of: N.E.M., Appeal of:
N.E.M., a Child in Custody, __ A.3d, __, 2024 WL 1202392 (Pa. Mar. 21,
2024). The Court held that a Pa.R.A.P. 1612 petition is not discretionary and
operates to expedite the appeal process for juvenile out-of-home placement
dispositions. Id. at *9.
-5-
J-M02001-24
only a challenge to the fact that the placement is out-of-home.” Pa.R.A.P.
1612(c)(1). Further, this Court “shall not consider any challenge to the
underlying adjudication of delinquency.” Pa.R.A.P. 1612(c)(2). This Court’s
standard of review is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in its
dispositional order. See In re A.D., 771 A.2d 45, 53 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en
banc) (“Finding that the court properly considered the information presented
to it and fashioned a disposition it believed best suited the circumstances
involved, we perceive of no manifest abuse of discretion which would cause
us to disturb its order.”). The juvenile court is granted broad discretion in
implementing its disposition. In re Love, 646 A.2d 1233, 1238 (Pa. Super.
1994).
[T]he discretion of the Juvenile Court in implementing a
disposition is broad, it is flexible and the Juvenile Court has
considerable power to review and modify the commitment, taking
into account the rehabilitative progress or lack of it of the juvenile.
Without extreme specificity as to the error by the court in
imposing the commitment, there can be no basis for setting aside
the disposition.
Id. at 1238 n.5.
Pursuant to section 6352(a) of the Juvenile Act, the juvenile court’s
disposition must “be consistent with the protection of the public interest and
best suited to the child’s treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare[.]”
42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a). The court must “provide balanced attention to the
protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses
-6-
J-M02001-24
committed and the development of competencies to enable the child to
become a responsible and productive member of the community.” Id.
When committing a juvenile to out-of-home placement, the judge must
state on the record in open court
the reasons for its disposition . . . , together with the goals, terms
and conditions of that disposition. If the child is to be committed
to out-of-home placement, the court shall also state the name of
the specific facility or type of facility to which the child will be
committed and its findings and conclusions of law that formed the
basis of its decision consistent with subsection (a) and section
6301, including the reasons why commitment to that facility or
type of facility was determined to be 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.
Id. § 6352(c). Section 6301 further specifies that a child should be separated
from his or her parents “only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health
or in the interests of public safety[.]” Id. § 6301(b)(3). The Juvenile Act
directs the juvenile court to employ 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.” Id. § 6301(b)(3)(i).
Petitioner alleges that the juvenile court misapplied the Juvenile Act.
His argument is two-fold. First, he asserts that the juvenile court did not
present the reasons for transferring him from Abraxas to George Junior
Republic on the record. Petition for Specialized Review, 1/12/24, at 6
(unpaginated). He also contends the juvenile court’s disposition was not a
-7-
J-M02001-24
balanced consideration of community protection, accountability, and
rehabilitation. See id., at 5-6. Instead, he argues that the juvenile court
improperly focused on punishment, when the record reflected that Petitioner
no longer posed a threat to the community and had taken accountability for
his actions. In Petitioner’s view, the juvenile court’s decision was not the
“least restrictive intervention” contemplated by the Juvenile Act and was,
therefore, an abuse of discretion. Id. at 6.
Upon our review of the notes of testimony, we agree with Petitioner that
the juvenile court ordered an out-of-home placement without stating its
reasons on the record at the time of the hearing, contrary to section 6352(c).
At the hearing, the main reasons given by the court—the seriousness of the
crime and the likely sentence Petitioner would have received if convicted as
an adult—largely sounded in punishment. See N.T., 12/21/23, at 24-25.
While the seriousness of the crime is relevant to the placement decision as it
relates to the protection of the public, Petitioner correctly notes that the
juvenile court is also to consider the juvenile’s accountability and his
treatment and rehabilitative needs when committing the juvenile to out-of-
home placement, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(3)(i), which the court only briefly
addressed in its desire to have Petitioner complete home visits. Further, Rule
512(D) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure requires that
when a juvenile court determines a juvenile needs treatment, supervision, and
rehabilitation, that it place its findings and conclusions of law on the record by
-8-
J-M02001-24
announcing them orally in court, followed by a written order. See Pa.R.J.C.P.
512(D), cmt.
The juvenile court’s failure to state the requisite findings and reasoning
on the record at the hearing, however, does not require automatic reversal.
In Commonwealth v. K.M.-F., 117 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2015), this Court
reviewed a petition for review filed pursuant to then-Pa.R.A.P. 1770.4 The
petitioner argued that the juvenile court erred because, in relevant part, it did
not specifically state on the record why out-of-home placement was the least
restrictive alternative, as required by the Juvenile Act. K.M.-F, 117 A.3d at
350. In response, this Court recognized the juvenile court’s error, but found
that because the placement programs were outlined by the juvenile probation
officer at the hearing and the juvenile court subsequently stated its reasons
for out-of-home placement, it did not require reversal. Id. at 351-52.
____________________________________________
4 In 2015, Pa.R.A.P. 1770 provided for an aggrieved party to file a petition for
review of an out-of-home placement in juvenile delinquency matters. “The
substance of that rule is now found in Pa.R.A.P. 1612.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1770,
note.
Although in N.E.M. our Supreme Court cited K.M.-F. with disapproval because
it treated petitions for specialized review under Rule 1770 as discretionary,
see Interest of N.E.M., 2024 WL 1202392, at *8, it did not disavow this
Court’s analysis of the merits of the case and its finding that the record
supported the juvenile court’s decision. Because Pa.R.A.P. 1612 incorporates
the operative language from former Pa.R.A.P. 1770, we conclude that K.M.-
F. retains its precedential authority in matters pertaining to Rule 1612
petitions. Compare Pa.R.A.P. 1612 (2024), with Pa.R.A.P. 1770 (2015).
-9-
J-M02001-24
Likewise, in Interest of D.W., 220 A.3d 573 (Pa. Super. 2019),5 the
juvenile court ordered out-of-home placement for the petitioner but did not
state its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record at the hearing.
After the petition for review was filed, this Court directed the juvenile court to
enter a statement of reasons for its order, and the juvenile court complied.
This Court relied on the juvenile court’s written statement of reasons in
determining that petitioner’s claims were without merit. We also noted that
although “the juvenile court neglected to explicitly delineate the reasons for
finding that out-of-home commitment was the least restrictive placement
alternative,” the reasons were clear from the record. Id. at 580. Accordingly,
we affirmed the juvenile court’s order on the merits.
Finally, we observe that Pa.R.A.P. 1612(f) provides:
Upon receipt of a copy of a petition for specialized review under
paragraph (a), if the judge who made the disposition of the
out-of-home placement did not state the reasons for such
placement on the record at the time of disposition pursuant
to Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D), the judge shall file of record a brief
statement of the reasons for the determination or where in the
record such reasons may be found, within five days of service of
the petition for specialized review.
Pa.R.A.P. 1612(f) (emphasis added). The note to Rule 1612 adds that
“paragraph (f) of this rule is applicable only in the exceptional circumstance
____________________________________________
5 The N.E.M. Court was similarly critical of Interest of D.W. in its decision.
See Interest of N.E.M., 2024 WL 1202392, at *8. For the reasons stated
above, we conclude that like K.M.-F., D.W. retains its precedential value on
the merits of the decision. See Int. of D.W., 220 A.3d at 579 n.6.
- 10 -
J-M02001-24
where the judge who made the disposition of an out-of-home placement fails
to comply with Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D).” Id., note. The rule thus contemplates
the precise circumstances present in this case, allowing the juvenile court to
supplement its on-the-record reasoning with a written decision explaining the
basis for its disposition.
Here, in its March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, the juvenile court
elaborated on its decision to continue Petitioner’s out-of-home placement at a
new facility, focusing its reasoning on Petitioner’s rehabilitative needs. The
juvenile court explained that during his time at Abraxas, Petitioner had no
overnight visits with his family nor did he visit his parents’ home. Op., at 3.
The juvenile court concluded that Petitioner had no significant, unstructured
periods of time outside the Abraxas facility, and thus had not been subjected
to the stresses that he would confront and with which he would need to cope
when he returns to his home community. Id. The juvenile court opined that
a premature return could jeopardize Petitioner’s continued, positive progress.
Id. at 3-4.
Additionally, a community service program for Petitioner had not yet
been established. The court also wanted to afford Petitioner an opportunity
to recover educational credits lost due to Petitioner’s lengthy incarceration
while the petition to decertify was pending, and the court cited George Junior
Republic’s excellent reputation for enabling students to recover lost
educational credits. Id. at 4.
- 11 -
J-M02001-24
Finally, the juvenile court explained that it considered Petitioner’s
success at Abraxas and authorized the issuance of home passes in an
expedited timeframe. Id. at 4-5. The court concluded that, barring any
unforeseen circumstances, Petitioner could be released to the care of his
mother at the conclusion of the next review hearing. Id., at 5. Additionally,
Juvenile Probation had provided an on-the-record explanation of the
programing available to Petitioner at George Junior Republic. See N.T. Hr’g,
12/21/23, at 13.
Regarding Petitioner’s objection to the juvenile court’s reliance on the
seriousness of the offense, we agree that the Juvenile Act does not specifically
include this as a factor to consider when a juvenile court renders its decision
concerning a juvenile’s placement. The Juvenile Act does, however, require
the juvenile court to consider the protection of the community as a factor in
its decision ordering out-of-home placement. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a).
Further, in its March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, the juvenile court
addressed Petitioner’s rehabilitative needs as outlined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(c)
and Pa.R.J.C.P. 512(D). The juvenile court found that Petitioner needed “to
complete multiple successful home passes prior to any full community release,
be afforded an opportunity to continue with his educational path, that he
attempt credit recovery, as well as prepare his transitional plans for eventual
release.” Op., at 5.
- 12 -
J-M02001-24
In addition, as in K.M.-F., Juvenile Probation provided an explanation
of the therapeutic and rehabilitative services that will be provided to Petitioner
at George Junior Republic. N.T., 12/21/23, at 14. In addition to the home
passes and credit recovery program noted by the juvenile court, Petitioner will
have continued therapy, which is particularly salient in light of Petitioner’s
acknowledgement of the devastating impact his crime has had on him.
Upon review of the Petition, the notes of testimony, and the juvenile
court’s March 4, 2024 statement of reasons, we find no manifest abuse of
discretion in the juvenile court’s placement directive. See In re A.D., 771
A.2d at 53. The juvenile court is given broad discretion to fashion an out-of-
home placement order and the record supports the juvenile court decision to
continue Petitioner’s out-of-home placement. The trial court considered
Petitioner’s rehabilitative, therapeutic, and supervision needs, his progress
and accountability as well as the need for community protection and
Petitioner’s needs to successfully transition home. See In re Love, 646 at
1238. We decline to disturb the juvenile court’s assessment of the further
support Petitioner needs to complete that transition, and we therefore affirm
its order.
Order affirmed.
- 13 -
J-M02001-24
DATE: 04/15/2024
- 14 -