No. 525 PITTSBURGH, 1982, Appeal from an Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, No. 592 of 1981. Juvenile Division.
Joseph T. Kownacki, Assistant Public Defender, Erie, for appellant.
Dana S. Jones, Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Rowley, Wieand and Hester, JJ.
[ 323 Pa. Super. Page 457]
This appeal centers on the legal proceedings wherein appellant, a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent and placed in Harbor Creek School for Boys. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in its disregard of the unanimous recommendation by relevant authorities that appellant be assigned to a facility known as George Junior Republic. Additionally, appellant argues that the failure of the trial judge to place the dispositional hearing on the record constituted
[ 323 Pa. Super. Page 458]
error. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.
One of the stated purposes of the Juvenile Act is to provide treatment for the youthful offender through a program of supervision, care, and rehabilitation. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(2). In order to accomplish this goal, the legislature vested the juvenile court judge with the authority to fashion a program which best serves the juvenile's individual needs. After a juvenile has been declared delinquent,*fn1 the trial judge may review all pertinent evidence to determine if there exists a need for treatment, supervision or rehabilitation.
In disposition hearings under subsections (b) and (c) all evidence helpful in determining the questions presented, including oral and written reports, may be received by the court and relied upon to the extent of its probative value even though not otherwise competent in the hearing on the petition. The parties or their counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to examine and controvert written reports so received and to cross-examine individuals making the reports. Sources of information given in confidence need not be disclosed.
42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(d). Following such a hearing, the judge enters an appropriate order which will serve both the minor and society by effectuating the purposes of the Juvenile Act.
Appellant contends that because his probation officer, the probation officer's supervisor, the institutional review panel, and his counsel submitted a unanimous recommendation as to his placement, the trial judge was ...