208 8 Court and the Legal System—Family Forensics
addition, there are instances in which family members are motivated by financial
gain, such as inheritance or property control, culminating in the institutionalization
of another relative. Hence, they request that the individual child or elder be admit-
ted into a mental hospital despite the consequences that may transpire. Essentially,
commitment may not be the most appropriate treatment for a given individual.
To demonstrate the susceptibility of civil commitment, one can analyze the first-
mentioned case of J.R. As unmanageable as J.R. may have been, placing him in
an institution was not appropriate for his needs, according to the court's opinion
(Parham v.J.R., 1978). However, as a juvenile, J.R. was not able to overcome the
request of his parents and psychologists when the initial decision to commit him
was made. Prior to the Parham decision, there was virtually no judicial input that
existed to insure that the liberties and rights of the mentally ill were considered
when a relative requested the hospitalization of a child family member.
Before the 1970s, civil commitment was an informal arena that was perceived
as medical, not legal (Reisner & Slobogin, 1990). Hearings questioning whether a
person should have been committed rarely occurred, if at all, until after the person
had been confined. Since the mentally ill were considered incapable of knowing
what was best for them, their opinions were not weighed heavily in court. In
other words, if a family member requested a relative's commitment and there was a
doctor's consent, then regardless of the wishes of the individual, he/she would most
likely be committed. Once committed, the person was labeled mentally ill and it
became difficult to cast off the stigma. Consequently, the probability of wrongfully
or erroneously committing an individual to a mental institution was highly likely,
given the nature of mental health policies defining commitment.
Provisions in the mental health field regarding the issue of commitment have
only been developed within the past few decades. Previously, questions were not
raised regarding the intentions of the family members who suggested it. Now that
the courts are more actively involved in the process, there is a more watchful eye
over family members, hospital administrators, and their motivations for civil con-
finement. Public defenders and specialists are assigned by the court to defend those
individuals who are evaluated for commitment. This procedure is essential in those
instances when family members do not look out for the best interest of a specific
relative (e.g., as we have seen in cases such as Parham v.J.R., 1978).
Currently, a judicial-type hearing is held prior to confinement during which
time decisions surrounding commitment and the best medical care are addressed.
These judicial guidelines are necessary, considering the unjust institutionalization
some individuals faced as a result ot past unethical standards for commitment. Yet,
some major problems have developed with these new restrictions in relation to
parens patriae and paternalism.
One difficulty with this transition can be observed when families that act in
the best interest of a given member are penalized due to the actions of other
members who harmfully suggest the commitment of a certain relative. New policies
can marginalize the voices of good-intentioned families when deciding what is