Secretary of Public Welfare of Pa. v. Institutionalized Juveniles
1979 U.S. LEXIS 131, 442 U.S. 640, 61 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a formal, adversarial hearing before a minor is voluntarily committed to a state mental institution by their parents or guardian. Instead, due process is satisfied by a state's procedure that ensures a thorough inquiry is made by a neutral medical factfinder to determine whether the statutory requirements for admission are met.
Facts:
- Mentally ill children under 14 and mentally retarded children aged 18 and younger were admitted to Pennsylvania state-owned mental health facilities.
- All children were admitted upon the application of their parents or a person standing in loco parentis.
- For mentally ill children, Pennsylvania's 1976 Act required an examination and an individualized treatment plan formulated by a treatment team within 72 hours to determine if inpatient care was necessary.
- For mentally retarded children, Pennsylvania's 1966 Act required a referral from a physician with a medical or psychological evaluation.
- Under both statutory schemes, the director of the institution was required to conduct an independent examination of the child and had the authority to refuse admission.
- The admission process at one state hospital involved a comprehensive evaluation by a full staff, including psychiatric, neurological, and medical examinations, psychological tests, and a review of the child's background.
- Once admitted, the state's procedures required that each child's treatment plan and condition be reviewed at least once every 30 days.
Procedural Posture:
- Institutionalized juveniles brought a class-action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare and directors of state facilities in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's statutes governing the voluntary admission of minors to mental health facilities.
- A three-judge District Court held that the statutes were unconstitutional because they did not provide sufficient procedural due process protections.
- The District Court ordered that the state must provide formal adversarial procedures, including notice, legal counsel, the child's presence at hearings, and a finding based on clear and convincing evidence.
- The defendant state officials (appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Pennsylvania's statutory procedures for the voluntary commitment of mentally ill and mentally retarded children by their parents or guardians violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No. The Court holds that Pennsylvania's procedures for the voluntary commitment of children comply with the due process requirements established in the companion case, Parham v. J. R. The risk of error in a parental decision is sufficiently addressed by an inquiry from a 'neutral factfinder,' such as a physician or medical team, who must determine if statutory admission criteria are met. This inquiry must include probing the child's background, interviewing the child, and having the authority to refuse admission. Pennsylvania's procedures satisfy these standards, as no child is admitted without at least one independent psychiatric examination by professionals whose sole concern is whether the child needs institutional care. The process includes compiling a full background history, and if the treatment team concludes care is not in the child's best interest, they must refuse admission. The subsequent periodic review every 30 days further protects the child's interest. Therefore, the state's comprehensive medical review process is constitutionally sufficient, and a formal adversarial hearing is not required.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Brennan
The preadmission procedures are constitutional, but the postadmission procedures are not. While the initial psychiatric interview procedures pass constitutional muster, the Court wrongly avoids ruling on the postadmission process. Pennsylvania's system is unconstitutional because it fails to provide adequate safeguards after a child is committed. For children under 13, there is no representation or prompt postadmission hearing. For older children, the burden is placed on the institutionalized child to contact a lawyer and initiate proceedings, which is an unrealistic expectation for individuals who may be unable to comprehend their rights or use a telephone. Inferring a waiver of constitutional rights from a child's silence or inaction is improper. The state must be required to assign each child a representative to ensure their rights are protected in substance, not just in form.
Analysis:
This case, decided alongside Parham v. J. R., firmly establishes the 'medical model' of due process for juvenile commitments over a 'legal model.' It rejects the lower court's push for trial-like adversarial hearings, instead vesting significant trust in the professional, independent judgment of medical personnel. The ruling affirms that the due process rights of children can be protected through a robust medical screening and review process, balancing the child's liberty interest against parental authority and the state's therapeutic goals. This precedent significantly shapes juvenile mental health law by defining the constitutional floor for 'voluntary' commitment procedures, making it more difficult to challenge these systems on procedural grounds so long as a neutral medical review exists.
