Document: 442 U.S. 640 99 S.Ct. 2523 61 L.Ed.2d 142 SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WELFARE PENNSYLVANIA et al., Appellants,v.INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILES al. No. 77-1715. Argued Oct. 10, 1978. Decided June 20, 1979. Syllabus Appellees filed a class action in Federal District Court against the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare and directors three state mental health facilities, seeking declaratory injunctive relief contending that Pennsylvania's procedures for voluntary admission mentally ill retarded children to hospital violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Holding State's were insufficient satisfy only formal adversary hearing could suffice protect appellees' from being needlessly confined hospitals, concluded specified required before any child be admitted voluntarily hospital. Held: 1. The risk error inherent parental decision have institutionalized care is sufficiently great some kind inquiry should made by "neutral factfinder" determine whether statutory requirements are satisfied. That must carefully probe child's background also include an interview with child. It necessary decisionmaker authority refuse admit who does not medical standards admission. Finally, continuing need commitment reviewed periodically. Parham v. J. R., 584, 2493, 101, controlling. P. 646. 2. comply these due process requirements. No without at least one often more psychiatric examinations independent team professionals whose sole concern needs can benefit institutional care. treatment interviews parents compiles full history. If concludes best interest, it admission; every condition 30 days. Pp. 646-650. 459 F.Supp. 30, reversed remanded. Norman Watkins, Harrisburg, Pa., appellants. David Ferleger, Philadelphia, appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 This appeal raises issues similar those decided as what when or guardian seek 2 * second time we Court's judgment unconstitutional. In earlier suit, five between ages 15 18 challenged 1966 statute pursuant which they had been Haverford State Hospital. Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 50, §§ 4402, 4403 (Purdon 1969). After three-judge Court, judge dissenting, declared unconstitutional, Bartley Kremens, 402 1039 (ED Pa. 1975), Legislature amended its code regard ill. amendments placed adolescents over age 14 essentially same position adults purposes Mental Health Procedures Act 1976, § 201, 7201 Supp.1978). Under new statute, named plaintiffs obtain their requested releases hospitals independently constitutionality therefore held claims moot. Kremens Bartley, 431 119, 129, 97 1709, 52 184 (1977). We then remanded case "reconsideration definition, exclusion moot, substitution representatives live claims." Id., 135, 1718. 3 On remand, 12 plaintiffs, appellees here, represent classes children. Nine younger than constituted all accordance 1976 suit was brought; other represented patients would under 1973 regulations implementing Act. All on application someone standing loco parentis approval after examination. 4 several defendants, owned operated facilities. however, certified defendant consisted " 'directors retardation facilities subject regulation Welfare.' 40 n. 37 1978).1 5 Representatives nine sought declaration embodied 2012 Supp.1978), subsequently expanded promulgated Welfare, 8 Pa.Bull. 2432 seq. (1978), procedural rights court issue injunction statute's future enforcement. presented 4023 4034 Retardation 1966, 4402 1969), thereunder.5 6 two subclasses plaintiffs6 Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23 statutes each subclass 7 analysis this used L. Parham, 412 112 (MD Ga. 1976), sub nom. 101. constitutionally protected liberty interest "waived" parents. conclusion, coupled perceived fallibility diagnosis, led hold hospitals. To further children's interests, following hospital: 9 1) 48-hour notice prior hearing; 10 2) legal counsel "during significant stages process"; 11 3) presence hearings; 4) finding impartial tribunal based clear convincing evidence treatment; 13 5) probable-cause determination within 72 hours hospital; 6) hearing, including right confront cross-examine witnesses, weeks date initial App. 1097a-1098a.7 Appellants, defendants appealed judgment. noted probable jurisdiction, consolidated 437 902, 98 3087, 57 1132. II 16 (a) Much said R. applies equal force case. interests appellee children, prerogatives, responsibilities, parents, obligations same. Our holding controls particularly: 17 "We conclude 'neutral factfinder' . using available sources, including, but limited to, schools, social agencies. Of course, review periodically similarly procedure." supra, 606-607, S.Ct., 2506. 19 (b) Unlike where general thus evaluated hospital, specific. focus here codified unconstitutional 20 describe inpatient Section 201 provides "[a] parent, guardian, person less years age" may apply examination receives provided temporary treatment, formulate "an individualized plan team." Within "necessary" why. 7205 inform his both necessity nature proposed treatment. Ibid. 21 Regulations provide shall re-examined her once See 7100.108(a), 2436 (1978). permit object thereby professional team. findings reported directly director has power obligation release no longer 22 indeed methods First, effect will. 7206(b) Second, "any responsible party" petition juvenile if believes restrictive setting such filed, attorney appointed days "what any, minor's interest." whenever medically indicated. 7206(c). regulates habilitation retarded. significantly Welfare. 1840 (1973). procedure ill, permitted solely parent guardian. referred physician referral accompanied psychological evaluation. addition, institution make child, he disagrees recommendation referring "required," discharged. Mentally anyone acting behalf writ habeas corpus challenge sufficiency legality "proceedings leading commitment." 4426 24 Any older explained him informed status report will object, either orally writing, hospitalization. objection, facility, feels hospitalization still necessary, institute involuntary proceeding 406 Act, 4406 25 What do how staff decides Hospital witness called side testify about decisionmaking She described follows: 26 "[T]here psychiatrist, so designated note record. Subsequently, Adolescent Service Hospital, there routine studies done, electroencephalogram, neurological examination, complete battery tests school evaluation, well When data compiled, entire conference held, conference, point hospitalization, time, well, adequate course planned." 112a. 27 addition physical conducted institutions, substantial "pre-admission information" file child.8 admitted, periodic staff. His different worker Since places deal emphasis family therapy, guardians met weekly discuss 113a. 28 satisfied comport set out earlier. history sources. program meets criteria our Parham.9 Accordingly, reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. 29 Reversed For reasons stated concurring 621, 2513, STEWART concurs 31 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL STEVENS join, part dissenting part. 32 my 625, 2515, 101 (concurring part), I agree preadmission pass constitutional muster. cannot agree, pretermit questions concerning postadmission procedures. ante, 650 9. view, condemned now. 33 neither representation nor reasonably prompt hearings younger. believe 34 As practical matter, fare little better. While current given telephone number admission, see 49, 51 Pa.1978) (Broderick, J., dissenting),* burden contacting initiating upon placement vitiates Many unable read, write, comprehend explanation rights, use telephone. 1019a (testimony Glenn). Few, consequence, able take initiative them secure advice assistance trained representative. Few trigger safeguards formally provides. Indeed, most recitation amount hollow ritual. fair guaranteed substance form commands Amendment satisfied, waiver inferred mere silence inaction Cf. Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). assign representative obliged initiate contact ensure fully protected. Otherwise, inevitable lost through inadvertence, inaction, incapacity. F.Supp., 44 47; 1039, 1050-1051 Pa.1975). Appellants argue private constitute They, did contest definition class, included public light process, decide correctly found action. part: "A act, doing deemed child." provides: "(a) Application facility by: "(2) A individual eighteen "(b) made, cause made. determined observation, admitted." 403 signed applicant witness. committed period exceed thirty days." "1. [M]entally juveniles pediatrician, psychologist; "2. accomplished evaluation indicate specificity requires care; accompany juvenile; "3. Director Institution juvenile, results disagree professional's opinion, discharge "5. juvenile's youth receive written notification (which signs) explaining indicating condition; mail furnished call ; "6. event chronological objects (either writing) remaining Institution, remain, continue institutionalization business during notify unit party [involuntary commitment] proceeding. ." One "all fourteen Article Act." 41. "mentally younger." 42. failed heed admonition remanding previously 'stop, look, listen' certifying order adjudicate 1718, Given disposition merits appeal, 23. Judge Broderick dissented majority. majority "has prescribed 'an overdose' process." 53. much weight accorded files because record making decision. "virtually information received admitting admission." 36 15. acknowledge extent used, nonetheless records into evidence. available, we, like assume served factual basis portions diagnoses Although briefly situation admissions. us conformed standards. Just members free remand particular commitments Also, faced deciding commitment. reason consider issue, reading complaint appear specific However, leave necessary. 16, 9960.6(c) Supp.1979) (Pennsylvania Defender related proceedings).

Category: 1