Opinion
J-S71014-16 No. 463 EDA 2016
01-19-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: Z.H., A MINOR
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Dispositional Order January 15, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-45-JV-0000197-2015 BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA AND FITZGERALD, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Z.H. appeals from the January 15, 2016 juvenile delinquency dispositional order that transferred her from the dependency-based placement at Wordsworth Academy to secured placement in the North Central Secured Treatment Facility. The order was entered after Z.H. made an admission to recklessly endangering another person ("REAP") and criminal conspiracy. We affirm.
During September 2013, then-thirteen-year-old Z.H. was adjudicated dependent. One year later, she attacked a caseworker from the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") and was charged with aggravated assault, REAP, and simple assault. The juvenile court determined the simple assault had been substantiated but declined to adjudicate Z.H. delinquent at that juncture. Instead, the juvenile court entered what it styled a "deferred adjudication" and placed her in a dependency group home administered by ChildFirst Services ("ChildFirst"). Z.H.'s record at ChildFirst was replete with behavioral issues including academic suspension, several attempts to abscond from the facility, and being charged with disorderly conduct. Z.H. was participating in a ChildFirst outing when she engaged in the underlying delinquent acts that are the genesis of this appeal.
The juvenile court summarized the relevant incident as follows:
The assault occurred on April 5, 2015, Easter Sunday, while [Z.H.] and her co-juveniles were on a ChildFirst-sponsored outing to the Stroud Mall, located in Monroe County, to shop and see a movie. The fifty-four year old victim was seated in front of the group in the movie theater. When the group "became rowdy, obnoxious, cursing and very loud, the victim turned around and whispered very nicely asking the girls to please quiet down a bit, my mom cannot hear the movie." (N.T., 11/17/2015, p. 3). The group responded with obscenities and blatant disrespect.
While walking to their car after leaving the theater, the victim and her family were ambushed and surrounded by [Z.H.] and her housemates in the parking lot of the mall. After directing a volley of obscenities at the victim, [Z.H.] was the first one to assault the victim "by sticking her finger in the victim's eyeball." (N.T., 11/17/2015, p. 4). The victim was then viciously beaten down in front of her family by [Z.H.] and her co-juveniles while two males filmed the episode. After being punched and knocked to the ground, the victim was "kicked in the face, the head, [and] the body. She suffered a broken orbital floor socket of her left eye. The victim had two black eyes, multiple contusions and bruises on her body and . . . was treated in the emergency room." (Id.) In addition, when the victim's sister-in-law attempted to intervene, she was surrounded . . . thrown to her knees, punched . . . in the back of the head and beat . . . up." (Id). After the attack was over and the victim was running to her
vehicle, [Z.H.] continued to pursue. Fortunately, the victim and her family were able to escape without further injury.Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/25/16, at 2-3.
On November 17, 2015, Z.H. entered an admission to REAP and criminal conspiracy in relation to the violence that she incited at Stroud Mall. In the meantime, Z.H. was removed from ChildFirst due to her disruptive and aggressive behavior. She was transferred to a VisionQuest shelter, but after engaging in bullying and other physical acts against peers, she was transferred to secure detention at the Philadelphia Juvenile Justice Service Center. Even that level of security proved inadequate, however, as she was reprimanded by justice center staff on several occasion for fighting. Ultimately, Z.H. was placed in a dependency program at Wordsworth Academy, a residential education-based facility. Wordsworth Academy is a secured facility in the colloquial sense that its minor residents are supervised at all times and are not permitted to leave the campus without prior approval. Wordsworth Academy is not a secured educational treatment unit.
On January 15, 2016, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. The court reviewed the social summary and recommendation prepared by the Monroe County Juvenile Probation Office, and considered testimony proffered by the victim, her son, a case worker from Wordsworth Academy and the operational director of DHS. In addition, the court considered the apologies that Z.H. made to her mother, the juvenile court, and the victim, as well as counsel's argument in opposition to removing Z.H. from Wordsworth Academy. As noted, the juvenile court rejected counsel's position and entered a dispositional order committing Z.H. to the North Central Secured Treatment Facility.
Z.H. filed a post-disposition motion, which the juvenile court denied, followed by a timely appeal. She complied with the court's order to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. She raises one issue on appeal: "Whether the trial court abused its discretion in placing the Juvenile at North Central Secure Treatment Facility when the Juvenile was already placed in a secure facility that was addressing the Juvenile's accountability and rehabilitative needs." Appellant's brief at 4.
We review the juvenile court's disposition order for an abuse of discretion. In re Love , 646 A.2d 1233, 1238 (Pa.Super. 1994). "The Juvenile Act is clear that a delinquent's disposition is a duty vested in the discretion of the adjudicating juvenile court. This Court will not disturb a sentence absent a manifest abuse of discretion." Id. (citations omitted). The Love Court further explained,
the 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 § 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" and "provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable the child to become a responsible and productive member of the community." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6352(a).
Z.H.'s argument is two-fold. First, she asserts that the trial court did not present on the record the reasons for transferring her from the Wordsworth Academy to the North Central Secured Treatment Facility. Next, she complains that the juvenile court's disposition was not a balanced consideration of community protection, accountability, and rehabilitation. Instead, she argues that the juvenile court focused upon punishment under the guise of protecting the community and accountability. Both of Z.H.'s arguments fail.
First, the certified record belies Z.H.'s claim that the juvenile court did not state its reasoning on the record during the dispositional hearing. See N.T., 1/15/16, at 24-28. The juvenile court presented its expression of rationale over four pages of the notes of testimony and then concluded,
I am not sure that the placement you are in [at Wordsworth Academy] [is sufficient] in terms of [the] long term . . .
combination of accountability[,] . . . competencies and safety[.] And for those reasons and the reasons set forth in the social study, I am going to accept the recommendation. I am going to place this young lady in the North Central Secure Female Treatment Unit.Id at 28-29. Thus, Z.H.'s first claim fails.
. . .
So [Z.H.], I know it's not what you wanted, I know you're not happy to hear that. I tried to give you the best reasons I could for my decision. I believe it is one that's supported by the facts, by the record, [and] by the history.
The second aspect of Z.H.'s argument assails the juvenile court's disposition as being unbalanced in favor of retribution and punishment. She contends that the juvenile court either overlooked or discounted the rehabilitation component of the analysis and stressed that a balanced consideration of the three prongs would have removed any doubt that her continued placement at Wordsworth Academy was the only suitable disposition.
After a thorough review of the the parties' briefs, pertinent law, and the certified record, we concluded that the juvenile court cogently and accurately addressed this aspect of Z.H.'s argument in its well-reasoned opinion entered on April 25, 2016. Therefore, we affirm the dispositional order transferring Z.H. to North Central Secured Treatment Facility on that basis.
It is evident that Z.H. preferred to remain at Wordsworth Academy, where she had shown progress since her pre-delinquency placement in 2015, and have that institution shift the focus of its counseling services from dependency to addressing her delinquency. Nevertheless, in light of the discretion allocated to the juvenile court under the Juvenile Act's statutory framework and the evidence supporting the juvenile court's decision, we cannot discern how the court's rejection of Z.H.'s stated preference is tantamount to an abuse of discretion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/19/2017
Image materials not available for display.