Challenged the adequacy of Philadelphia’s program of aftercare probation, which was responsible for a child’s course of treatment in, discharge from, and supervision following detention for juvenile offenses.
Briefed the issue of constitutionality of a state certification statute that requires juveniles, in violation of their right to due process and against self-incrimination, to admit guilt in order to rebut the presumption of certification to adult court.
Argued that J.B. should be released from detention pending his adjudicatory hearing in juvenile court because his unlawful detention violates Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act; challenged J.B.'s sentence as against the weight of the evidence.
Juvenile Law Center and two private attorneys filed this brief on behalf of an eleven-year-old charged with the murder of his stepmother. The brief argued that the trial court’s interpretation of the transfer statute requiring the juvenile’s confession at the pre-adjudicatory decertification hearing in order to demonstrate his ability to be rehabilitated in the juvenile system was in violation of his right against self-incrimination and rights to due process and fundamental fairness under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
Brought a Section 1983 civil rights damage action on behalf of a foster youth who had been in foster care for three and a half years without any judicial review and without the provision of services to help him return home to his family by the county child welfare agency.
Motions were filed with the juvenile court seeking nunc pro tunc relief on behalf of youth who in York County had been adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses prior to December 2012 when the SORNA law went into effect. The motions for nunc pro tunc relief ask the court to reconsider their classification as juvenile sex offenders and remove their information from the sex offender registry.
These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.