Parham v. J.R.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawFamily LawDue ProcessMental Health CommitmentParental Rightsdue processjuvenile commitmentmental hospital

Facts

Georgia law allowed a parent or guardian to apply for admission of a child under 18 to a state mental hospital for observation and diagnosis, after which the superintendent could admit the child upon finding evidence of mental illness and suitability for treatment. Admissions in practice involved interviews with the child and parent, review by hospital staff, and periodic post-admission review, though procedures varied among hospitals. The District Court concluded these procedures inadequately protected children and required an adversary hearing plus expansion of nonhospital alternatives. The named plaintiffs, including J. R. and the now-deceased J. L., had been admitted after behavioral and emotional problems and were periodically reviewed while hospitalized.

Issue

What process is constitutionally due before or after a minor child is voluntarily admitted to a state mental hospital at the request of parents or a guardian? Specifically, does due process require a formal adversary hearing, and are Georgia's procedures unconstitutional on their face?

Rule

A child has a substantial liberty interest in not being unnecessarily confined for mental health treatment, but due process does not require a formal or quasi-formal adversary hearing before or after voluntary commitment by a parent or guardian. Due process is satisfied if a neutral factfinder—such as an independent physician—conducts a careful inquiry, interviews the child, considers all available sources of information, has authority to refuse admission, and the child's continuing need for confinement is periodically reviewed by a similarly independent procedure.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Ortiz asks a state psychiatric hospital to admit her 13-year-old son, Leo, after months of conflict at home. Under the hospital's policy, once a parent signs the application, admission is automatic for at least 30 days, and no clinician may reject the placement during that period.

If Leo challenges the policy on procedural due process grounds, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The majority held that a minor has a substantial liberty interest in not being unnecessarily confined, and parents do not have absolute and unreviewable power to institutionalize a child. Due process requires some inquiry by a neutral factfinder, such as an independent physician, who can decide whether the statutory standards are met and who has authority to refuse admission. Automatic admission based solely on parental signature fails that requirement.