ABSTRACT
In Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a parent or a guardian can commit a minor to a mental institution if a staff physician certifies that the minor should be committd, even if the minor strenuously opposes their decision. The Court specifically rejected claims that commitment of a minor by a parent or guardian without an adversary hearing is a deprivation of the minor's liberty without due process of law. This Note reviews the Parham opinion, with special attention to its impact on "mature minors" and wards of the state and to its definition of a neutral factfinder. The Note argues first that the Court's failure to establish special safeguards for "mature minors" and wards of the state is inconsistent with constitutional standards of due process, and second, that the Court's acceptance of staff physicians as neutral fact-finders may be unwarranted. The Note recommends the creation of more stringent procedural safeguards for the commitment of minors by parents and guardians, including the use of independent mental health professionals as "neutral factfinders."
