|
Parham v. J.R. Supreme Court of the United States, 1979 422 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101.
I. Facts.
J.R (“P”, the plaintiff), a child being treated in a Georgia state mental hospital, claimed that Georgia’s voluntary commitment procedures for children under the age of 18, violated his right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requested changes for further enforcement. Lowers courts found for P. Defendant (“D), the other party which was composed of State’s Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, the Director of the Mental Health Division of the Department of Human Resources, and the Chief Medical Officer at the hospital where P was treated, appealed.
II. Issue.
Whether Georgia’s voluntary commitment procedures for children under the age of 18 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
III. Reasoning.
A. Rules.
1. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
2. Georgia. Code §§ 88-503.1 (1975)
- Admission begins with an application for hospitalization signed by a ‘parent’ or ‘guardian’.
Georgia. Code §§ 88-503.3 (1975)
- Any child who has been hospitalized for more than 5 days may be discharged at the request of a parent or guardian.
1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *447;2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *190
- Parents act in the best interest of their child.
3. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 271 (1970)
- A ‘neutral factfinder’ is required to determine whether the statutory requirements for admission are satisfied.
- Due process has never been thought to require that the neutral and detached trier of fact be law trained or a judicial or administrative officer.
B. Application
1. As denoted in Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any individual surely has the right not to be deprived of his life or liberty without due process of law. However, this concept arouses controversy since P is not only a child under the age of 18 but also has been diagnosed of a mental disease that causes him to exhibit unsocial and aggressive behaviors.
2. Georgia’s voluntary commitment procedures for children require parental or guardian approval for admission and discharge from a mental health facility. Georgia. Code §§ 88-503.1 (1975) and Ga. Code §§ 88-503.3 (1975). P argues this deprives him of his individual right to due process of law, since parents or guardian possesses ultimate authority in this decision making process to hospitalize their children and an individual child has no such power to deny it.
However, the generally accepted concept is that parents act in the best interest of their child. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *447;2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *190, and there is no record evidencing whether P’s parents had any intention of using the hospital as a dumping ground for P. Therefore, there should be any forms of evidence of mistreat or abuse if P wanting to assert that his parents is not acting on the best interest of their child.
3. Moreover, since a medical issue is involved in this case, it should not be the administrative government or jurisprudence of law alone but the voice of medical personnel should be heard in the decision making process as this medical condition may harm not only P himself but others if remains untreated. Here, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 271 (1970) explains that the Due process right of P is not violated even if the process is conducted by a ‘neutral factfinder’ with a medical profession.
IV. Holding.
The judgment is reversed and remanded.
|