Legal Brief for the Case Parham v. J.R.

Facts.

This case included three appellees who were minors. One of them was institutionalized in Georgia. The mother of the second plaintiff asked for an indefinite commitment. Finally, the third plaintiff was removed from the parents and sent to a hospital. The defendants were several governmental institutions. Originally, the plaintiffs wanted a receive a declaratory judgment which would state that the actions of the government of Georgia were not constitutional. All plaintiffs were sent to the institutions against their will and at will of their parents without a proper hearing in court.  That is why these people chose to ask the court to recognize that their rights were violated since due process was not followed as there were trials where they would be able to protect themselves. It seemed that the parents could decide the fate of their children without asking the latter about their opinion which violated their rights.

Legal issues.

The definition of the due process as well as whether it must have adhered in this case constitutes the legal issues that need to be discussed in this particular case. The concept in question is firmly rooted n the Constitution. To be more specific, there are two primary amendments that laid the foundation for it. The Fifth Amendment ensures that a due process will be followed if the government decided to invade the privacy of the citizens or limit their rights otherwise (McCarthy, Patton & Carr, 2005). Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, it ensures that all citizens regardless of any characteristic are subject to due process. If one follows this logic, one will be able to notice that the minors should be protected by the same level of protection. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to refrain from holding hearings that would determine their future against their will. This is the primary issue that needs to be resolved.

Decision.

The court decided that the institutionalization of the minors if it was initiated by the parents, did not violate the due process clause; as a result, there was no problem in refraining from holding factfinding hearings. It was suggested that even if such hearings were held, they would not reveal anything important that could not have been revealed by a professional in an institution. In addition to that, the court also rules that in order to protect the rights of the minors that were already institutionalized, it was essential that regular reviews would help. This was done to ensure that no healthy people would be present in the institution against their will when there is an objective need to help them. This was designed as a safeguard that would protect the rights of the people as this was the ultimate goal of the judicial system in general.

Reasoning.

The court believed that factfinding hearing would do more harm than good as it will uncover some extremely intimate aspects of the relationship between the parent and a child. In other words, it was decided that the families would be better off if such a hearing would not be performed. Furthermore, the court reasoned that since parents are not able to determine whether their child as a condition with a high amount of certainty, then it is essential to carry out regular reviews. This would also help the institutions make sure that they take care of the people who really need help. This would prevent the institution from becoming places where the parents would send their children if they did not want to take care of them. As a result, all this would contribute to the effectiveness of the justice system and make sure that the rights of the people are protected properly.

References

McCarthy, F. B., Patton, W. W., & Carr, J. G. (2005). Juvenile law and its processes: Cases and materials. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 29, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person