Appeal from the Order March 1, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Juvenile Division at No.: CP-14-JV-0000090-2011, CP-14-JV-0000004-2012.
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J [*]
In this consolidated appeal, Appellant, T.R.B., appeals from the decree of March 1, 2013, revoking his probation. After careful review, we affirm.
The Juvenile court set forth the salient facts of this case as follows:
On February 21, 2013, a 72 hour hearing was held. At the hearing, [Appellant] admitted to the probation violations involving smoking synthetic marijuana. He wished to be returned home on electronic monitoring. The Commonwealth was concerned that [Appellant] had not been attending school and was home alone on days his mother worked. Further, he had smoked marijuana previously while on electronic monitoring. The Commonwealth requested placement in a detention center for up to 20 days during which time an assessment would be prepared. The Juvenile Court entered an Order on February 21, 2013 finding probable cause that [Appellant] violated his probation and returning him to Central Counties Youth Center for up to 20 days during which time he was required to submit to all physical, medical, dental and/or psychological evaluations deemed appropriate by the Centre County . . . [j]uvenile [p]robation [d]epartment. A [d]isposition [h]earing was to be held in 20 days.
On March 1, 2013[, ] a [d]isposition hearing was held. At such time, the juvenile probation department and the Commonwealth recommended that [Appellant] be placed in Northwestern Academy's Renew Program until he successfully complete[d] the program. . . .
(Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/14/13, at 1-2 (record citations omitted); see also Order, 3/01/13). Appellant timely appealed.
Appellant raises one question for our review: "Was it manifest abuse of discretion by the juvenile court when [Appellant] was not afforded or allowed to have a proper Dispositional Hearing after revocation of his probation?" (Appellant's Brief, at 4). Appellant argues that he did not receive a proper dispositional hearing in accordance with our holding in In re Love, 646 A.2d 1233 (Pa.Super. 1994), appeal denied, 655 A.2d 511 (Pa. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1126 (1995), because "the juvenile court precluded [Appellant] from presenting complete testimony of the only witness who had an opportunity to get on the witness stand; and did not allow testimony by other witnesses who were present." (Id. at 10 (record citation omitted)). He further asserts that he is entitled to another dispositional hearing because he "vehemently objected to the recommended placement" and "was not afforded full opportunity to advance his argument in support of his opposition to the placement; or offer alternative solutions for his own problems." (Id. at 12). We disagree. Our standard of review is well-settled:
The Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to the court in disposition. This Court will not disturb a disposition absent a manifest abuse of discretion. The purpose of the Juvenile Act is as follows:
Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to provide for children committing delinquent acts programs of supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(2). This section evidences the Legislature's clear intent to protect the community while rehabilitating and reforming juvenile delinquents.
In the Interest of D.S., 37 A.3d 1202, 1203 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 42 A.3d 293 (Pa. 2012) (some citations omitted). Although juvenile court proceedings are "conducted on a comparatively informal basis, " In re Holmes, 103 A.2d 454, 459 (Pa.Super. 1954) (citation omitted), our ...