In Re D.M.W
102 A.3d 492
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant D.M.W. was adjudicated delinquent and in need of treatment for acts that could be crimes if committed by an adult.
- SOAB conducted an assessment and the juvenile court received it and a separate facility evaluation leading to a prima facie finding of need for involuntary treatment in 2012.
- The Berks County juvenile court filed a petition for involuntary treatment under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6403(b) and the civil division held a hearing in January 2013, resulting in an order for commitment and a subsequent appeal.
- On January 8, 2014, the trial court conducted an annual review under § 6404(b)(2) and renewed the commitment for one year, with notice of appeal filed February 6, 2014.
- The SOAB’s new assessment and the facility’s ten-month evaluation were completed in late 2013 but were not received by the court until January 5, 2014, three days before the renewal hearing date.
- Appellant argued the untimely submissions violated § 6404(b)(1) and/or that the hearing was untimely under § 6404(b)(2), seeking discharge or reversal of the renewal order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 6404(b) timing was violated | D.M.W. argues untimely reports preclude a valid hearing and require discharge. | County contends no prejudice established and continuation with a valid court order remains appropriate. | No discharge; no reversible prejudice established; order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kerstetter, 94 A.3d 991 (Pa. 2014) (statutory interpretation is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2014) (plain language governs interpretation; ambiguity governs 1921)
- Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2014) (principles of statutory interpretation; plain meaning controls when unambiguous)
- In re S.A., 925 A.2d 838 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Act 21 rights and public safety interests; compelling state interests)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2013) (late pleadings may be allowed if no prejudice and justice requires)
- Peters Creek Sanitary Auth. v. Welch, 681 A.2d 167 (Pa. 1996) (late filings permitted where no prejudice)
- In re J.K., 595 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 1991) (untimeliness may require discharge under Mental Health Act analogies)