7. Parham v. J.R.
1. Fact
Appellee J.R, a plaintiff in the class cation, was a neglected child and was placed in seven different foster homes before being admitted to Central State Hospital at the age of 7. He suffered an "unsocialized, aggressive reaction of childhood” and the foster parents decided to have him hospitalized. After being admitted, the J.R.’s progress was periodically reviewed.
Though there is no published any statewide regulation about the procedure when admitting a child under 18, each hospital has its own procedures and approaches. However, the appellee alleged that the hospitals deprive a child of freedom.
The appellee urged that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requested an injunction against their future enforcement.
The District court held that Georgia’s statutory scheme failed to protect properly the appellee’s due process rights and ordered to expend reasonably necessary nonhospital facilities for those members of plaintiff’s class.
The appellant challenged.
2. Issue
Is the procedure when admitting a minor child to a regional mental hospital constitutional?
3. Rules
(1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Due Process Clause
(2) Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976): a balancing of a number of facts required
"First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
4. Application
(1) Balancing the interests
Under Mathew v. Eldridge, though the child’s interest is not being committed, the parents’ interest for heal of child is linked to the child’s interest. Though the appellee argued that parents could abuse the rights, the court lend the law concept the parents make decision for the children’s best interest. The state’s interest is significant when the medical professions have a responsibility of determining an admission of the children. The court assumed that a child has a protectible interest in freedom of body and in not being attached stigma for improper decision.
(2) A neutral factfinder
From Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 271 (1970), a neutral factfinder to determine whether the statutory requirements for admission are satisfied. Thus, due process is not violated since well-established medical process is already exit. Though a parent’s motive for free admission is consistent with a child’s, the court assumed that parents act in the best interest of their child. An interview/inquiry before admission and periodical examination after admission can sufficient to protect the child’s interest.
5. Conclusion
The court reversed and remanded; the admission procedure was sufficient but needed factfinding.
6. Feedback
(1) Due Process – Procedural (e.g. hearing, reasonable time notice), substantive (e.g. contents)
(2) This case was dealing with the right of minor children and due process under the Constitution. The court held that the procedure was not violation but factfinding was needed for the application of the procedure.