In: Psychology
Literally “parent of one’s country,” this Latin term refers to the inherent responsibility of the government, or of the court system, to protect people who cannot protect or care for themselves. The concept of parens patriae in the U.S. legal system most commonly applies to issues of child custody and protection, though it may also be used in protecting others who cannot care for their own interests, such as insane or mentally incapacitated adults.
The evolution of parens patriae in the United States had its beginnings when early juvenile courts began to recognize as important the role of the parent in meeting the physical, emotional, and educational needs to the child. The court, it was thought, had the right to intervene in cases where the parents were unable or unwilling to provide for the child. This doctrine was expanded to address circumstances where the child was at risk for criminal behaviour. As a result, a system of rehabilitative treatment programs was developed for youth deemed at risk, with the goal being that they grow up and become productive adults. In this way, the parens patriae model allowed the court to serve as surrogate parents for wayward children.
The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. The goal of this juvenile court was to protect neglected children and rehabilitate delinquent children. Its charge was to use the parens patriae concept to protect the state’s right to officially intervene in the juvenile’s life, especially if the youth was neglected. Under this principle, the state has the power to intervene in cases if the child has not reached full legal capacity. Moreover, the state has the inherent power and the responsibility to provide these protections to children whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. This power, which the court recognizes as inherent, has since been strengthened by legislation that defines the scope of child protection within each state. The original juvenile court’s focus was on the child’s welfare, which included dependent, neglected, abused, and delinquent children.
In subsequent years, the states have expanded the doctrine of parens patriae to include protections for other members of their citizenry. In Louisiana v. Texas (1900), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the propriety of allowing the state to sue on behalf of its citizenry. In Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (1907), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that individual states have recourse to the judicial power of the United States to resolve disputes between the states.
This evolution of an increasingly broad application of the parens patriae doctrine permits the state to bring an action on behalf of its citizens to protect its sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests. This sovereign interest is the guarantee of the well-being of the state’s citizenry. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two general categories of quasi-sovereign interests. The first is the protection of the health and well-being, both physically and economically, of the state’s residents in general. The second is the protection of the state’s interest in not being discriminatorily denied its rightful status within the federal system. In deciding whether a state can use the parens patriae doctrine in a specific claim, the Court may look to whether the injury is one that the state might address through its sovereign law-making powers and whether the conduct infringes, either directly or indirectly, on a significant portion of the population, per the ruling in Snapp and Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico (1982).
The doctrine of parens patriae was established as a mechanism for the states to act in the best interest of children. When children are considered at risk, the state can step in and act as the parent. Over time, however, this doctrine has been expanded so that the state can act in the best interest of all citizens where the well-being of the state’s citizenry is at stake.
Following are the characterizes the typical juvenile offender
Following are some of the causes for delinquency
Beyond rendering a student truant, poor school attendance can increase the student’s likelihood of becoming a juvenile offender in other ways. School provides a structured routine and without that routine, an adolescent can become unmotivated and easily influenced by destructive, antisocial messages. Put more plainly, a teen who doesn’t receive the daily support, discipline and routine that comes from attending school might internalize the idea that she does not have to conform to social expectations and can instead do as she pleases. A parent’s lack of involvement in the student’s schooling only adds to this message that attending school is not important.
Poor school environments are also one of the major causes of juvenile crime. Just like a student who does not attend school cannot benefit from the structure and discipline school provides, a student in an overcrowded, underfunded school does not have a secure, supportive school environment. Students in schools where violence and chaos are the norm can get into fights, become involved in gangs, access drugs easily and develop anti-authority attitudes.
Although suffering from a mental health condition does not mean that it's more likely a teen will be violent, a teenager suffering from a mental health condition who is regularly exposed to violence faces an increased risk of committing a violent offense. Suffering from depression can put a teen at risk of becoming violent against others as well as engaging in self-harm.
Mental and emotional disorders can push adolescents into circumstances in which they face other identified causes of juvenile delinquency, like a poor school environment. A student might be identified as needing specialized education services, but fail to actually receive them; or the student may have a parent who is uncooperative with his school’s attempts to provide these services. This isolates the teen, potentially increasing his risk of lashing out or experimenting with drugs.
There are a few ways that substance abuse in a teen’s home can contribute to her likelihood of committing criminal acts. One is neglect from her parents because of their own addiction. A parent who struggles with substance addiction is often unable to provide his child with the support she needs and may even prioritize his addiction over his responsibility to his family, spending household funds on drugs.
If the adolescent struggles with her own addiction, the addiction can potentially drive her to steal to support her habit. Similarly, substance abuse can wear down a teen’s sense of self-worth and lead to conditions like depression – or exacerbate them. Conversely, mental health conditions can drive teens to use drugs in an effort to self-medicate, which can set them up to steal to support their drug habits and buy and possess illegal drugs. When the drug in question is alcohol, this can also drive the teenager to purchase and use a false identification.
For many teens living in poverty, juvenile crimes are committed in an effort to survive. An adolescent might feel it is necessary to steal money to afford food and household supplies, or that he needs to steal the food and supplies directly. This may be reinforced by watching a parent commit theft and other criminal offenses, such as fraud, in an effort to feed the family and pay household expenses.
Parents raising their children in poverty also frequently work multiple jobs in an effort to cover all household expenses, which can leave children and teens unsupervised for prolonged periods of time. A teen whose parent is physically and/or emotionally absent might turn to criminal activity out of anger or hurt. This could lead to the teen becoming involved with a gang in an effort to forge family relationships, which in turn leads to juvenile delinquency.