442 U.S. 584, 610 (1979)
J. L. was admitted to Central State Regional Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, in 1970 at the age of six after receiving outpatient treatment for over two months.1 His mother requested indefinite admission following his expulsion from school for uncontrollable behavior.2 The admitting physician diagnosed him with a hyperkinetic reaction of childhood after interviewing the child and parents.3
J. L. was later returned to his parents on furlough but readmitted within two months due to family stress, and his parents relinquished their parental rights in 1974.4 J. R. was declared a neglected child and removed from his natural parents at three months of age, after which he was placed in seven different foster homes.5 At age seven, following outpatient treatment and disruptive behavior at school, the Department of Family and Children Services sought his admission to Central State Hospital.6
Hospital staff determined J. R. was borderline retarded and suffered an unsocialized aggressive reaction of childhood, recommending the structured environment of the hospital. J. R. filed suit along with J. L. on October 24, 1975, requesting placement in a less drastic environment.7 The class action was brought on behalf of all persons younger than eighteen received for observation, diagnosis, or treatment at Georgia facilities pursuant to the voluntary commitment statute.8
A three-judge district court was convened and, after considering testimony, exhibits, and visiting two hospitals, held Georgia's procedures unconstitutional.9 The court enjoined future commitments under the statute and ordered the state to provide nonhospital facilities for those who could be treated in less restrictive settings.10 Appellants, including the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources and hospital officials, appealed the judgment.11
Georgia's statute allows a parent or guardian to apply for a child's admission to a regional hospital for observation and diagnosis, after which the superintendent may admit the child if there is evidence of mental illness and suitability for treatment.12 The statute also requires discharge when the child has recovered or improved sufficiently.13 Each regional hospital has its own procedures, often involving referrals from community mental health clinics, interviews by admission teams including psychiatrists, and periodic reviews by staff.14 The average length of stay varied across hospitals from 71 days at West Central to 456 days at Central State.15
The district court found that forty-six children in the class could be optimally cared for in less restrictive nonhospital settings such as group homes or therapeutic camps if available.16 State officials testified that the budget could not support expanding such alternative facilities during fiscal year 1977.17 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the case with another for reargument.18
Whether the Due Process Clause requires an adversary hearing before or after the voluntary commitment of a minor to a state mental hospital by a parent or guardian?19
The Due Process Clause requires a balancing of the child's liberty interest in avoiding unnecessary confinement, the parents' traditional authority to make medical decisions for their child, and the state's interest in providing effective mental health care without undue procedural burdens, as set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).20
No. The private interest combines the child's liberty from unnecessary restraint with the parents' presumptive authority to seek treatment, which the facts show was exercised after outpatient efforts failed for both J. L. and J. R.21
The risk of erroneous deprivation is addressed by the state's requirement of an independent medical judgment by hospital staff using interviews, records, and secondary sources rather than an adversary hearing, which would intrude on family autonomy and divert resources from treatment.22 The government's interest in avoiding barriers to needed care and preserving fiscal resources for actual treatment is directly implicated by the district court's order to fund alternative facilities despite testimony on budget limits.23
The Due Process Clause does not require an adversary hearing before or after voluntary commitment of a minor by a parent or guardian when the state provides an independent medical review process.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment.25 He emphasized that for centuries it has been a canon of the common law that parents speak for their minor children.26 So deeply imbedded in our traditions is this principle of law that the Constitution itself may compel a State to respect it.27
Stewart noted that the Georgia statute recognizes the power of a parent to act on behalf of a minor child under voluntary commitment procedures.28 He concluded that the basic question is whether the Constitution requires Georgia to ignore basic principles so long accepted by our society, and he answered that question in the negative.29 Stewart observed that parents constantly make decisions for their minor children that deprive the children of liberty.30
He found no basic constitutional difference between commitment to a mental hospital and other parental decisions that result in a child's loss of liberty.31 The objective checks embodied in Georgia law are constitutionally sufficient.32
Whether Georgia's medical review procedures for admitting minors to state mental hospitals adequately protect against erroneous commitments?33
Due process requires that a neutral factfinder, typically a staff physician free to exercise independent judgment, conduct an inquiry into the child's background, interview the child, apply statutory medical standards, and periodically review the need for continued hospitalization using traditional medical investigative techniques.34
Yes. Georgia's procedures satisfy this standard because each regional hospital employs admission teams of psychiatrists and other professionals who interview the child and parents, review records from community clinics, and apply criteria of mental illness and suitability for treatment, as shown by the detailed descriptions of Southwestern, Atlanta Regional, GMHI, Augusta, Savannah, West Central, and Central State hospitals.35 Periodic reviews occur weekly or monthly at most facilities, and superintendents have an affirmative duty to discharge patients no longer in need, directly reducing the risk of error in the generality of cases without requiring judicial-type hearings.36
Georgia's medical review procedures adequately protect against erroneous commitments by providing independent professional evaluation and ongoing review.37
Whether different procedures are required for the initial commitment of a minor who is a ward of the state rather than a child with natural parents?38
When the state acts in loco parentis for a ward, the same medical decisionmaking process suffices for initial admission because the statutory presumption that the state acts in the child's best interest parallels the presumption afforded natural parents, and extensive records compiled during state custody provide additional information for the admitting physician.39
No. The facts show that J. R., a ward of the state, received a complete socio-medical history and three separate interviews before admission, with three physicians independently concluding institutional care was appropriate, demonstrating that the medical review process functions equally well without natural parents.40 No evidence indicated that state guardians sought admission for reasons unrelated to treatment needs, so the differences in the two situations do not justify different procedures at initial commitment.41
Different procedures are not required for the initial commitment of a minor who is a ward of the state.42
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Marshall, Stevens
Justice Brennan dissented on this issue.43 He concluded that state social workers acting in loco parentis cannot be equated with natural parents.44 The rule in favor of deference to parental authority is designed to shield parental control of child rearing from state interference.45
The rule cannot be invoked in defense of unfettered state control of child rearing or to immunize from review the decisions of state social workers.46 Brennan reasoned that the social worker-child relationship is not deserving of the special protection and deference accorded to the parent-child relationship.47 State officials acting in loco parentis cannot be equated with parents.48
Therefore wards of the state are entitled to preadmission hearings to prevent unfettered state control over child rearing.49 Brennan would hold Georgia's present practice of denying these juveniles prior hearings unconstitutional.50
Whether periodic independent review of a committed minor's continuing need for hospitalization is required?51
Due process requires that the child's continuing need for commitment be reviewed periodically by an independent procedure comparable to the initial neutral medical factfinding to guard against arbitrariness in ongoing confinement.52
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that Georgia hospitals conduct such reviews, with weekly staff meetings at some facilities, monthly utilization reviews at others, and reviews every 100 days at Augusta, all performed by teams including professionals not involved in the original admission, satisfying the requirement that continuing confinement be justified by ongoing medical assessment rather than the initial decision alone.53
Periodic independent review of a committed minor's continuing need for hospitalization is required and is provided by Georgia's procedures.54
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Marshall, Stevens
Justice Brennan agreed that postadmission review is necessary.55 He argued that the informal ex parte procedures currently used by Georgia fail to qualify as hearings because they lack notice, the right to be present, representation, confrontation, and the opportunity to present evidence.56 Brennan stated that the informal postadmission procedures that Georgia now follows are simply not enough to qualify as hearings, let alone reasonably prompt hearings.57
The procedures lack all the traditional due process safeguards.58 He concluded that the special considerations that militate against preadmission commitment hearings when parents seek to hospitalize their children do not militate against reasonably prompt postadmission commitment hearings.59 Brennan would require at least one reasonably prompt postadmission hearing with traditional safeguards.60