In re K.G.-B, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 98 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2026)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a young person’s probation revocation, finding that the state’s failure to provide defense counsel with notice and discovery violated the young person’s due process rights.
The court stated in relevant part: We recognize that “[d]ue process is a flexible concept which ‘varies with the particular situation.'” Bundy v. Wetzel, 646 Pa. 248, 184 A.3d 551, 557 (Pa. 2018) (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127, 110 S. Ct. 975, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1990)). . . . Applying these precepts to the question of whether Gagnon‘s notice requirements should apply in the juvenile context, we conclude that they do.
Regarding the first consideration, the juvenile’s interest in the governmental action is perhaps even stronger than in the adult criminal context. “While at least one of the purposes of the criminal justice system is to punish individuals who fail to obey the law, the purpose of juvenile proceedings, on the other hand, is to seek treatment, reformation and rehabilitation, and not to punish.” Matter of Huff, 399 Pa. Super. 574, 582 A.2d 1093, 1098-99 (Pa. Super. 1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The General Assembly has stated that to achieve the aims of the Juvenile Act, courts may “separat[e] the child from parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health or in the interests of public safety,” and must “us[e] the least restrictive intervention that is consistent with the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the rehabilitation, supervision and treatment needs of the child[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(3)(i). This is an express recognition of the juvenile’s liberty interest in remaining in the community and with his or her family. See also Interest of Davis, 546 A.2d at 1153 (“A juvenile has the same substantial interest in retaining his liberty as an adult”).
Turning to the second consideration, written notice of the alleged violations and disclosure of the evidence to be presented helps ensure that the juvenile court has the best information available before depriving the juvenile of his or her liberty. In the adult revocation context, we have explained that a written notice of alleged violations and the disclosure of evidence to be presented in support ensures that the “probationer can sufficiently prepare his case, both against the allegations of violations, and against the argument that the violations, if proved, demonstrate that parole or probation is no longer an effective rehabilitative tool and should be revoked.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 254 Pa. Super. 48, 385 A.2d 518, 520 (Pa. Super. 1978). This concept applies equally in the juvenile context. Moreover, providing written notice of the alleged violations lessens the risk of an erroneous deprivation and promotes the General Assembly’s purpose of keeping family units intact. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1), (3).
