Parham v. J. R. (1979): Parents, the State and a Child's Mental Hospital Admission

The short answer

In Parham v. J. R., the U.S. Supreme Court decided what process is due when parents, or the State acting as a child's guardian, seek to admit a child to a state mental hospital Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The Court held that Georgia's procedures were "reasonable and consistent with constitutional guarantees" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Due process required an inquiry by a "neutral factfinder," but not a formal hearing in court Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The case is mixed for parents. It contains some of the Court's strongest words on parental authority. It also says that authority is not unlimited.

What the case was about

J. R. was a child being treated in a Georgia state mental hospital. He was a plaintiff in a class action, a lawsuit brought for a whole group. Here the group was children under 18 received for observation, diagnosis or care at Georgia facilities Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). He had been declared a neglected child and removed from his parents when he was 3 months old. He then lived in seven foster homes before he was admitted to the state hospital at age 7 Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The Department of Family and Children Services sought his admission Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

Under Georgia law, admission began with an application signed by a "parent or guardian" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The children challenged Georgia's procedures for these "voluntary" admissions of children under 18 Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The District Court agreed with them. It held that due process required at least a right "to be heard before an impartial tribunal" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

What the court decided

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment. Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, concurred in part and dissented in part Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The child's interest. The Court said a child has "a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The parents' role. The Court said the law presumes parents have the maturity, experience and judgment a child lacks. It noted that child neglect and abuse cases show the presumption can be rebutted. But it called the idea that government should override parents "in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children" repugnant to American tradition Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). It also said a State "is not without constitutional control over parental discretion" when a child's physical or mental health is jeopardized Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The Court concluded that parents keep "a substantial, if not the dominant, role in the decision, absent a finding of neglect or abuse." The presumption that parents act in the child's best interests applies. Even so, parents cannot always have "absolute and unreviewable discretion" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The process required. A "neutral factfinder" must decide whether the admission requirements are met. The review must include an interview with the child, and the child's continuing need must be reviewed periodically Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The factfinder need not be a judge, and "a staff physician will suffice" if free to judge independently. No formal hearing is required, though a State may choose to provide one Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

Wards of the State. J. R. and some other children were wards of the State when admitted Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The Court held that the differences did not require different procedures at admission. The State may let its custodial agency speak for the child, "subject, of course, to the restrictions governing natural parents" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). But the Court saw risks. For a ward, there may be no adult who knows and cares for the child deeply, and a child without parents risks being "lost in the shuffle." It noted some indication that J. R.'s stay was prolonged because the agency had trouble finding him a foster home Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Whether wards needed different review of their continuing care was left for the lower court Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The Court reversed and remanded, and told the District Court to consider individual claims that admissions fell short of these standards Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

The partial dissent. Justice Brennan would have required at least one hearing after admission. He would also have required hearings before a ward is committed by the State. He wrote that state officials acting in place of parents "cannot be equated with parents" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). That view did not carry the Court.

In the court's words

The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.

In plain English: the misconduct of some parents does not justify the government taking over every parent's decisions Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

parents cannot always have absolute and unreviewable discretion to decide whether to have a child institutionalized.

In plain English: parental authority is strong, but a neutral check is still required Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

For a ward of the state, there may well be no adult who knows him thoroughly and who cares for him deeply.

In plain English: the Court recognized that children in State care can lack someone watching out for them Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).

Why it matters for Texas families

Parham is a U.S. Constitution case about Georgia's mental hospital procedures. Its reasoning about parents and the State reaches further. In Troxel v. Granville (2000), Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion relied on Parham for the presumption "that fit parents act in the best interests of their children" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Two parts matter most for CPS families. First, the presumption in favor of parents applies "absent a finding of neglect or abuse" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). The opinion does not define what kind of finding it meant. To learn how Texas CPS investigation findings work, see CPS Investigation Findings in Texas: Reason to Believe, Ruled Out and More.

Second, Part IV is about children in State custody. The Court allowed the State's agency to speak for those children, but only subject to the same limits that apply to parents, and it flagged the risk that such children get "lost in the shuffle" Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979). If your child is in State care, ask your lawyer who is speaking for your child and how decisions about treatment are reviewed. See Your Right to a Lawyer in a Texas CPS Case. This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Troxel v. Granville (2000): Special Weight for a Fit Parent's Decisions
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents, Religion and Schooling After Eighth Grade
• Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights
• CPS Investigation Findings in Texas: Reason to Believe, Ruled Out and More
• Your Right to a Lawyer in a Texas CPS Case