In the Interest of: T.B., a Minor, 348 MDA 2016

Background

T.B. was adjudicated delinquent in July 2004 for multiple sexual offenses committed shortly before his 13th birthday against very young victims; he remained in residential treatment into adulthood.
Upon turning 20 (July 9, 2011) the State Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) performed an Act 21 assessment and concluded he needed involuntary treatment.
The SOAB had accessed mental-health treatment records that contained statements made to therapists; T.B. moved to strike the assessment as based on privileged treatment communications.
This Court vacated the original commitment, remanded to determine whether privileged material was reviewed, and the parties agreed to a redacted record; the SOAB re-assessed (2013) and again recommended commitment.
Multiple procedural delays and appeals followed; the juvenile court held hearings, received expert testimony (Commonwealth expert Stein and defense expert Foley), considered annual SOAB assessments through 2015, and entered a civil commitment order on February 23, 2016.
The court concluded Act 21 proceedings remained jurisdictionally proper despite T.B.’s age and delays he had caused, and that post-20 SOAB assessments were admissible and relevant to the commitment decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 21 jurisdiction terminated because commitment relied on SOAB assessments made >180 days after T.B.'s 20th birthday	T.B.: juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to base commitment on assessments taken well after his 20th birthday	Commonwealth: Act 21 proceedings remained viable; delays were caused by T.B., and statute must be applied to effectuate legislative intent	Court: Held jurisdiction persisted; delays attributable to T.B. do not defeat Act 21; using later assessments was reasonable and necessary
Whether juvenile court exceeded scope of remand by considering SOAB assessments from 2012–2015	T.B.: remand permitted only a re-assessment without broader review; court exceeded direction by relying on later assessments	Commonwealth: remand required removal of privileged materials but did not forbid consideration of non-privileged later records	Court: Held remand did not preclude SOAB or court from reviewing non-privileged subsequent assessments; conduct was proper
Whether court erred by ordering a new 6403 petition (Jan 8, 2014)	T.B.: court improperly ordered a new commitment petition sua sponte after finding a prima facie case and against parties’ stipulation	Commonwealth: vacatur and remand produced a new round of proceedings requiring a refreshed petition to protect procedural rights	Court: Held ordering a new petition was proper given vacatur and new proceedings; procedural protections required a new petition
Whether commitment was supported by clear and convincing evidence of mental abnormality and risk	T.B.: experts and statistics showed low recidivism for juvenile offenders and insufficient evidence of persistent predisposition	Commonwealth: expert testimony and annual SOAB reports documented ongoing sexualized, violent, and self-injurious behaviors and lack of progress in treatment	Court: Found Commonwealth’s evidence persuasive; commitment under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403 affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005) (standards of statutory construction and review)
In re K.A.P., 916 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Act 21 applies despite defendant being in state prison on 20th birthday when delays were caused by defendant)
In re T.B., 75 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior panel opinion vacating commitment and remanding for determination whether SOAB reviewed privileged treatment records)
Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011) (interpreting related procedural/remand principles)
Turner Constr. Co. v. Plumbers Local 690, 130 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
Hazleton Area Sch. Dist. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 778 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 2001) (principles of statutory construction)