In re F.C. III

Juvenile Law Center filed an appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania law, known as Act 53, which allows courts to order involuntary civil commitments for minors found to be drug dependent. The law is one of only a few in the country that allows such commitment solely for drug treatment. Prior to the passage of Act 53 minors could be committed only in accordance with Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act, which allows commitment upon a finding of mental illness and dangerousness. Juvenile Law Center argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should reverse F.C.'s adjudication as a "drug dependent" minor and strike down Act 53 as unconstitutional because the statute lacks the minimum due process protections that minors are entitled when they are at risk of losing their liberty. By allowing a youth to be involuntarily committed based on untested allegations, without notice of the proceedings, and without a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him, the statute infringes upon the due process rights of minors and does not further the state's interest in providing substance abuse treatment to youth in need. Furthermore, Juvenile Law Center argued that by taking F.C. into custody in shackles, detaining him in a holding cell, and leaving him in shackles throughout the Act 53 proceedings his due process rights were violated.

The Pennsylvania Superior affirmed a lower court’s order involuntarily committing F.C.

Juvenile Law Center filed an appeal in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that Act 53 violates the civil rights and liberties of minors at three critical phases: at pre-adjudication where minors, without notice, can be court-ordered to undergo an assessment for drug use based on the mere filing of a petition; at adjudication where the determination for drug dependency is vague, and the neutrality of the court is compromised by the absence of counsel for the state; and at disposition where the procedures that subject minors to commitment in a highly restrictive setting for drug dependence are not narrowly tailored.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court’s opinion.

Further Reading

Justices Mull Question of Minors Due Process Rights, The Legal Intelligencer, September 18, 2009