Question

What is parens patriae? Give a detailed explanation of this concept. Discuss at least three landmark United States Supreme Court cases related to juvenile justice to either exhibit that the concept of parens patriae has strengthened or eroded over the years.

Answer 1

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" (lit., "parent of the fatherland"). In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.The power of the state to act as guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves, such as children or disabled individuals. Like, under this doctrine a judge may change custody, child support, or other rulings affecting a child's well-being, regardless of what the parents may have agreed to.

Anglo-Saxon common law that dates back to the 11th and 12th centuries in England was influenced by Roman civil law and canon law. This has particular significance for American juvenile justice because it has its roots in English common law. The Chancery courts in 15thcentury England were created to consider petitions of those in need of aid or intervention, generally women and children who were in need of assistance because of abandonment,divorce, or death of a spouse. Through these courts the king could exercise the right of parens patriae (“parent of the country”), and the courts acted in loco parentis (“in place of the parents”) to provide services in assistance to needy women and children. The principle of parens patriae later became a basis for the juvenile court in America. The doctrine gives the court authority over juveniles in need of guidance and protection, and the state may then act in loco parentis (in place of the parents) to provide guidance and make decisions concerning the best interests of the child.

• Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). A juvenile court does not have unlimited parens patriae power. It is not entitled to act with “procedural arbitrariness.” The decision to waive a juvenile to adult court requires first providing the young person with basic due process: a hearing, effective assistance of counsel, and a “statement of reasons” for the decision.
• Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975). Once a juvenile is tried in an adjudicatory hearing, it is a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to subsequently give him a criminal trial for the same act. Gault and its progeny narrowed the differences between the adult criminal process and juvenile process—but McKeiver and others are doctrinal reminders that the due process requirements imposed by the Constitution are not identical for juvenile delinquents and adult criminals.
• J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011). The Court decided whether age was a factor defining “custody” for Miranda purposes. J.D.B., age 13, was a special-education student, suspected of burglary. During school, while J.D.B. was in class, a uniformed police officer brought him from his classroom into a conference room, where he was questioned by the assistant principal, school administrator, and a police investigator. He was never read his Miranda rights, nor were his guardians notified. J.D.B. incriminated himself in the burglaries. Only after J.D.B. incriminated himself in the burglaries was he informed that he was free to leave. Justice Sotomayor wrote the Court’s Opinion, holding that in some circumstances, a child’s age “would have affected how a reasonable person” in the suspect’s position “would perceive his or her freedom to leave.” A child’s age is far “more than a chronological fact,” she continued. Referencing Roper, the Opinion cited to “commonsense conclusions about behavior and perception,” that apply broadly to children as a class. Children “generally are less mature and responsible than adults,” they “often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them,” and they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to . . . outside pressures” than adults. In the specific context of police interrogation, events that “would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a [teen].” The Opinion concluded that age is a factor to be considered in determining whether an individual is “in custody.”

During the last 30 years, there have been a number of shifts in the system’s orientation toward juvenile justice policy.

In response to the rise in violent crime in the early 1990s and public scrutiny of the system’s ability to effectively control violent juvenile offenders, states adopted numerous legislative changes, including those that made it easier for juveniles to be prosecuted as adults. Since that time, juvenile crime (particularly violent crime) has fallen considerably and states have again made changes to laws and policies. Some of these changes have been informed by research on the unique developmental needs of adolescents and the interventions that work to improve outcomes for youth in juvenile justice. In recent years, several states have redefined the age boundaries of their juvenile courts to raise the upper age of original jurisdiction.