Parens patriae doctrine and legal applications

Parens Patriae

Four alleged juvenile delinquents in the Marion County Juvenile Court were tested for competency under the adult competency statute, were found to be incompetent and were ultimately ordered to the mental health division of Indiana. The mental health division unsuccessfully moved to vacate that order, and then appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's order. However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded the case(s) for further proceedings. The two lower courts did not affectively apply Parens Patriae but the Supreme Court effectively applied the Doctrine.

Summary of In Re K.G.

was a 12?year-old boy accused of sexual battery, D.G. was a 10?year-old boy accused of child molesting, D.C.B. was an 11?year-old boy accused of arson and J.J.S. was a 13?year-old girl accused of burglary and theft. All four alleged juvenile delinquents: were in the Marion County Juvenile Court; successfully moved for psychiatric evaluations to determine their competence to stand trial; were found to lack the ability to understand the proceedings and to assist in their defenses, in accordance with the Indiana adult competency statute; were initially placed in residential treatment centers, then ordered to be committed to the division of mental health for confinement in appropriate state psychiatric institutions. Through the mental health division of the Family and Social Services Administration, the State unsuccessfully moved to vacate the orders of commitment, though the Juvenile Court acknowledged the division of mental health "[did] not currently have available appropriate facilities or programs" for the alleged juvenile delinquents (Sirkin, 2005). The State then appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The trial court's order/judgment was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals but reversed by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order/judgment, stating that: "(1) juveniles have a constitutional right to have their competency determined before they are subjected to delinquency proceedings, and (2) because the juvenile code provides no procedure for determining the competency of children, the adult competency statute applies" (Sirkin, 2005). The Indiana Supreme Court agreed that juveniles have a constitutional right to have their competency determined before they are subjected to delinquency proceedings but disagreed that the juvenile code provides no procedure for determining the competency of children. Since the juvenile code "must be liberally construed" to "ensure that children within the juvenile justice system are treated as persons in need of care, protection, treatment, and rehabilitation" (Ind. Code § 31"10"2-1(5)) and since Ind. Code § 31"32"12?1 provides that "the [juvenile] court may also order medical examinations and treatment of the child under any circumstances otherwise permitted in this section," (thereby allowing the juvenile court to order competency evaluations without the specific guidelines of the adult competency statute), the adult competency statute does not apply to children.