parens patriae doctrine in Montana

2012Those reasons are: (1) juvenile commitment under the Youth Court Act is “strictly for rehabilitation, not retribution”; (2) the “liberty interest of a minor is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, to an extent not permissible with adults” under the doctrine of parens patriae; and (3) other jurisdictions persuasively have concluded that “adults and juveniles are not similarly 11 situated in these circumstances.” In re C.S., 210 Mont. at 146-47 , 687 P.2d at 59 .

2009Conversely, in Matter of C.S., this Court determined that youths and adults were not similarly situated with respect to sentencing laws, primarily based on different purposes for juvenile and adult commitments and applications of the doctrine of parens patriae. 210 Mont. 144, 146-47 , 687 P.2d 57 , 59 (1984).

2012Those reasons are: (1) juvenile commitment under the Youth Court Act is “strictly for rehabilitation, not retribution”; (2) the “liberty interest of a minor is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, to an extent not permissible with adults” under the doctrine of parens patriae; and (3) other jurisdictions persuasively have concluded that “adults and juveniles are not similarly 11 situated in these circumstances.” In re C.S., 210 Mont. at 146-47 , 687 P.2d at 59 .

2009Conversely, in Matter of C.S., this Court determined that youths and adults were not similarly situated with respect to sentencing laws, primarily based on different purposes for juvenile and adult commitments and applications of the doctrine of parens patriae. 210 Mont. 144, 146-47 , 687 P.2d 57 , 59 (1984).

2012We followed our reasoning from In re C.S. and applied its holding in In re G.T.M., ¶¶ 12-13. ¶29 In In re G.T.M., we distinguished In re S.L.M., in which “this Court determined that youths sentenced as adults under the Extended Jurisdiction Prosecution Act (EJPA) and adults sentenced for committing the same offense are similarly situated classes for purposes of equal protection.” In re G.T.M., ¶ 12 (citing In re S.L.M., 287 Mont. at 32 - 33, 951 P.2d at 1371 ).

2012We followed our reasoning from In re C.S. and applied its holding in In re G.T.M., ¶¶ 12-13. ¶29 In In re G.T.M., we distinguished In re S.L.M., in which “this Court determined that youths sentenced as adults under the Extended Jurisdiction Prosecution Act (EJPA) and adults sentenced for committing the same offense are similarly situated classes for purposes of equal protection.” In re G.T.M., ¶ 12 (citing In re S.L.M., 287 Mont. at 32 - 33, 951 P.2d at 1371 ).

2001Individual liberty and the parens patriae doctrine ¶51 In articulating a standard for effective counsel, it is necessary to recognize and dispel certain stereotypes that serve only to frustrate the legal process that purports to secure the skillful and humane care and treatment of individuals suffering from mental disorders. ¶52 In this regard, our citation to the California Supreme Court’s decision, Conservatorship of Roulet (Cal. 1979), 590 P.2d 1 , in In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 442, 451 , 684 P.2d 1073, 1078 , is significant.

2001Individual liberty and the parens patriae doctrine ¶51 In articulating a standard for effective counsel, it is necessary to recognize and dispel certain stereotypes that serve only to frustrate the legal process that purports to secure the skillful and humane care and treatment of individuals suffering from mental disorders. ¶52 In this regard, our citation to the California Supreme Court’s decision, Conservatorship of Roulet (Cal. 1979), 590 P.2d 1 , in In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 442, 451 , 684 P.2d 1073, 1078 , is significant.

2001Buck v. Bell (1927), 274 U.S. 200, 205-207 , 47 S.Ct. 584, 584-85 , 71 L.Ed. 1000 (Holmes, J.). 9 ¶62 However enlightened we, as a society, may have become in the intervening 75 years since Buck v. Bell, we must nevertheless be cautious and critical of signs of paternalism legitimized by the parens patriae doctrine, where State actors purport to have an absolute understanding of what is in the best interests of an individual, whose liberty, dignity and privacy are at issue, and whose voice is muted by the swift and overriding authority of court-appointed professionals.

2001Buck v. Bell (1927), 274 U.S. 200, 205-207 , 47 S.Ct. 584, 584-85 , 71 L.Ed. 1000 (Holmes, J.). 9 ¶62 However enlightened we, as a society, may have become in the intervening 75 years since Buck v. Bell, we must nevertheless be cautious and critical of signs of paternalism legitimized by the parens patriae doctrine, where State actors purport to have an absolute understanding of what is in the best interests of an individual, whose liberty, dignity and privacy are at issue, and whose voice is muted by the swift and overriding authority of court-appointed professionals.

2001Individual liberty and the parens patriae doctrine ¶ 51 In articulating a standard for effective counsel, it is necessary to recognize and dispel certain stereotypes that serve only to frustrate the legal process that purports to secure the skillful and humane care and treatment of individuals suffering from mental disorders. ¶ 52 In this regard, our citation to the California Supreme Court's decision, Conservatorship of Roulet (1979), 23 Cal.3d 219 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 425 , 590 P.2d 1 , in In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 442, 451 , 684 P.2d 1073, 1078 , is significant.

2001Individual liberty and the parens patriae doctrine ¶51 In articulating a standard for effective counsel, it is necessary to recognize and dispel certain stereotypes that serve only to frustrate the legal process that purports to secure the skillful and humane care and treatment of individuals suffering from mental disorders. ¶52 In this regard, our citation to the California Supreme Court’s decision, Conservatorship of Roulet (Cal. 1979), 590 P.2d 1 , in In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 442, 451 , 684 P.2d 1073, 1078 , is significant.

1962Application of Johnson, 178 F.Supp. 155 , U.S.D.C.D.New Jersey.