In the Int. of: T.L.B., a Minor Appeal of: Com.
127 A.3d 813
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellee (juvenile) admitted he touched the genitals of his 22-month-old nephew and 4-year-old niece during a September 15, 2013 bathing incident; he was 12 at the time.
- Dependency proceedings placed the child in CYF custody and ordered treatment with Diakon SPIN (specialized in‑home sex‑offender program); Diakon began treating him in Feb. 2014.
- Commonwealth filed a juvenile delinquency petition (felony third‑degree indecent assault counts) in April 2014; Appellee admitted to two indecent assault counts in June 2014.
- At the October 7, 2014 adjudication/disposition hearing the sole witness was Appellee’s Diakon therapist, Heather Gorr, who testified Appellee had attended intensive therapy (10–15 hrs/week), showed steady progress, had no sexual acting‑out in over a year, and was a low risk to reoffend.
- Juvenile court found Appellee not in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation and dismissed the delinquency petition while keeping placement; Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred in dismissing delinquency petition despite felony indecent assault presumption for need of treatment | Presumption under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(b) supports adjudication; public safety, accountability, YLS psychosexual moderate risk, and therapist still endorsed high level of services | Therapist testimony established successful offense‑specific treatment and low current risk; existing non‑offense treatment made further adjudication unnecessary | Juvenile court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported finding juvenile not in need of further treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation |
| Whether being already in treatment can justify denying adjudication | Argued that existence of treatment does not automatically defeat adjudication and court still must consider public protection | Treatment progress can overcome presumption when evidence shows offense‑related treatment is complete and risk is low | Court may find no need for adjudication where treatment has addressed offense and juvenile is low risk; M.W. does not forbid considering existing treatment |
| Whether juvenile court improperly ignored Juvenile Probation/CYF roles and community protection concerns | Probation assessments (YLS) showed moderate risk; court should weigh community safety and probation input | Court limited inquiry to need for treatment/supervision/rehabilitation per M.W.; therapist’s direct clinical assessment was persuasive | Court correctly focused on statutory two‑part inquiry (commission + need for treatment) and did not err in its evidentiary crediting |
| Whether juvenile court exhibited bias/ill will against Commonwealth | Claimed court language reflected bias and improper motive | Court provided a reasoned evidentiary analysis and credited therapist testimony | No reversible bias; language did not overcome the court's detailed factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. M.W., 39 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2012) (holding delinquency requires both commission of acts and a finding the juvenile needs treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation)
- Interest of C.A.G., 89 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing juvenile court discretion in disposition)
- Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007) (declining to find waiver where trial court addressed the claim)
- In re R.D.R., 876 A.2d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2005) (noting juvenile sentencing must consider public protection but addressing post‑adjudication dispositions)