Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB1266

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/13/26
• Refer: 4/13/26

Caption

In juvenile matters, further providing for definitions, providing for financial obligations imposed on child and further providing for disposition of delinquent child.

Summary

SB 1266 amends Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice statutes in Title 42 to narrow and clarify when courts may impose financial obligations on children in juvenile proceedings. The bill revises the definition of “child” to continue court jurisdiction in certain dependency cases up to age 21 when the young person is pursuing education, career and technical training, employment, barrier-removal programming, or is unable to do so because of a medical or behavioral health condition. It also adds a new section stating that, except for restitution, a child or the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian may not be required to pay fees, costs, or other monetary obligations in juvenile matters, including charges tied to programs, evaluations, services, informal adjustments, consent decrees, or dispositional orders. The bill further revises the delinquency disposition provisions to focus financial accountability on restitution rather than broader fines, fees, or costs. Courts would still be able to order restitution, including limited contributions to restitution and victim compensation funds, and could require restitution as part of probation or rehabilitative service arrangements. The measure preserves the court’s ability to retain jurisdiction until restitution is satisfied or the child turns 21, and unpaid restitution may still be collected afterward under existing collection law. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

SB 1266 would change Title 42 by limiting the imposition of court-related monetary obligations in juvenile cases and by refining the remedies available in delinquency dispositions. It would prohibit most fees and costs in juvenile proceedings, while preserving restitution as the primary financial obligation that can be imposed on a child. It also updates the juvenile definition section to extend dependency jurisdiction in specified circumstances up to age 21, which may affect court oversight, permanency planning, and service eligibility for older dependent youth.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a reform aimed at reducing financial burdens on youth and families in the juvenile system while preserving victim restitution. The overall policy direction suggests support for limiting fees and emphasizing rehabilitation, education, and employment pathways for dependent youth. No formal opposition or recorded vote history is available in the provided context.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the shift away from broad juvenile court fees and costs, which may concern parties that rely on such assessments to offset system expenses, versus advocates who view those charges as punitive and counterproductive for children and families. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s preservation of restitution and limited victim-fund contributions, including how much financial responsibility should remain with juveniles and how courts should balance accountability, rehabilitation, and victims’ losses. The expanded age-21 jurisdiction for certain dependent youth could also raise questions about court workload and the scope of continuing supervision.