NCJ Number
62082
Date Published
1979
Length
61 pages
Annotation
SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DEALING WITH JUVENILE JUSTICE ARE DISCUSSED; THE WORK IS INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR USE IN TRAINING PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES.
Abstract
CASES INCLUDED IN THE TEXTBOOK FOCUS ON PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS, RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, PARENTAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC) RECIPIENTS, AND RIGHTS OF CHILDREN VIS-A-VIS RIGHTS OF PARENTS. MOST DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN THE 1960'S AND 1970'S. CASE TREATMENT VARIES SOMEWHAT IN LENGTH. THE TYPICAL CASE INCLUDES THE CITATION, THE MAJORITY OPINION, AND DISSENTING OPINIONS. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE RELATED BRIEFLY. TEXT ARRANGEMENT IS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIED SUBJECT CATEGORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DUE PROCESS SECTION INCLUDES DISCUSSION OF PEOPLE V. FIELDS, IN RE GAULT, DAVIS V. ALASKA, AND GOSS V. LOPEZ. LEVY V. LOUISIANA, GOMEZ V. PEREZ AND LINDA V. RICHARD FOCUS ON RIGHTS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. STANLEY V. ILLINOIS AND QUILLOIN V. WALCOTT INVOLVE PARENTAL RIGHTS. AFDC RECIPIENTS' RIGHT ARE ADDRESSED IN CARTER V. STANTON, WYMAN V. JAMES, AND TOWNSEND V. SWANK. PARENTAL RIGHTS VIS-A-VIS CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ARE DISCUSSED IN MEYER V. NEBRASKA, WISCONSIN V. YODER, AND KREMENS V. BARTLEY. DESPITE THE BREVITY OF PRESENTATION, CASE DESCRIPTIONS ARE EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE AND USEFUL. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MISSOURI V. DANFORTH, THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED A MISSOURI STATUTE THAT REQUIRED AN UNMARRIED MINOR TO OBTAIN PARENTAL CONSENT TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION. THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATE CANNOT REGULATE OR PROSCRIBE ABORTIONS DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY, STATING THAT THE PARENTAL CONSENT PROVISION IMPOSES AN ABSOLUTE PARENTAL VETO ON THE MINOR'S RIGHT. THE DISSENTING VIEW IS EQUALLY WELL ARTICULATED. IT STATES THAT PROVIDING FOR PARENTAL CONSENT IS THE TRADITIONAL WAY IN WHICH CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED FROM MAKING IMMATURE AND IMPROVIDENT DECISIONS. (LWM)