Parham v. J. R.

Since the 1960s, the American judicial system had come to recognize that juveniles and the mentally challenged or mentally ill have many of the same rights as other Americans. In step with other successful legal challenges of the civil-rights era, there came an acknowledgment from the state that certain societal institutions, such as the family, and the medical profession, were indeed fallible. The Court's decision on Parham v. J. R. reversed this trend. In its decision written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court ruled that an adversary hearing is not required for parents to commit a child to a mental-health facility (or in the case of wards of the court, by the state agency acting in loco parentis).

The Court found that professionals working in the separate units for minors within Georgia's psychiatric hospitals, including Central State Hospital, screened admissions adequately, and reviewed their progress regularly. Furthermore, the Court noted that parents generally act in the best interests of their children, and that juveniles are incapable of making their own decisions regarding relatively weighty or complex issues. Supporting this was the assertion that no adversary hearing is required when a minor needs surgery. It did, however, concur that there was some risk regarding parents' committing their children to psychiatric facilities, and suggested a "neutral factfinder" inquiry be undertaken at the time of admission, which would include an interview with the minor.

Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens concurred with the majority opinion as well as dissented from it. Criticism of the ruling centered on the observation that when a situation arrives at the point where parents request that the child be committed, relations within the household have already arrived at serious deterioration--or, in other words, children who exhibit anti-social behavior usually come from disturbed home environments. Critics also found fault with the Court's comparison of admission into a mental hospital with surgery, contending the two were very different procedures.