Ex
Parte Crouse (1839) is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which
establishes the doctrine of parens
patriae, “the state is the father.” Parens
patriae grants the state the right to intervene with parenting to protect a
child or individual. The dispute began when Mary Crouse, a fifteen-year-old
“infant” is committed to the House of Refuge without a trial. Crouse’s father
sues the House of Refuge for the release of Mary based on habeas corpus, “show me the body.” Although Ex Parte Crouse
empowered judges and the courts to impose progressive era goals, in practice
the case disempowered children and delegitimized “other” families.
Mary’s mother placed her into the
House of Refuge due to her vitriolic, uncontrollable actions. Based on Mary’s
age, government officials did not allow Mary to present herself in court.
Mary’s father argued this violated her right of habeas corpus, in which the
Pennsylvania court cannot lock an individual in prison without appearing before
a judge to hear charges. Furthermore he argues that despite how badly children
behaved, they could not be taken from their parents. The court ruled that the
judicial system has the right to assist families unable to control, educate, or
protect the virtue of troubled youth. When parents fail to exercise parental
control, it becomes the state’s responsibility to reform wayward children.
This case exemplifies the
Progressive Era’s paternal compulsion. Although the organization of the House
of Refuge fell below expectations, the reformers of the Progressive Era
grappled with intense anxiety about urbanization, immigration, class, and
industrialization. The fear of raising inept children became a growing concern
for middle-class child-savers. Parens
patriae served as a vehicle for these reformers to delegitimize “other” parents
by favoring paternalism. Parens patriae
served as a policing mechanism in which children are sent to state-sponsored
reforming institutions to strip “other” parents of control. Despite Mary’s
father wanting custody of his child, the court deprived him of authority and
forced Mary to be dependent upon the government. This leads me to question the
standards upon which the exercise of parental control are based on. If mother
and father disagree on whether the child’s acts are harmful, but one parent is
willing to claim responsibility for those actions, I am unsure it is the
government’s role to intercede by transferring parental rights to a judge. The
court’s approach of dismantling families based on
subjective standards is unsettling.
The court’s decision that Mary’s
internment at the House of Refuge was not punishment, but rehabilitation,
ignores her constitutionals rights. I am unconvinced the House of Refuge acted
as a refuge-school for at-risk youth. Parens
patriae takes a dangerous diversion towards subjectivity and away from
constitutional doctrine by enhancing the power of judges to pronounce the best
interests of youth. This further denies youth agency and establishes the power
of juvenile justice courts.
Just so that other class members know, the author of this Blog Essay's name is Victoria.
ReplyDeleteI think Victoria brings up a very important point when she mentions Mary's father, who is desperate to reclaim custody of his daughter. The idea behind parens patriae is that the state should take care of children whose original parents are unable or unwilling to do so. The only evidence that the court uses to retain Mary in the House of Refuge is her egregious behavior. However, there was no evidence that her father would not be able to rehabilitate such behavior. It is disconcerting that the court would make a ruling based on assumption.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the claim in Ex Parte Crouse that the House of Refuge was a school rather than a prison, and therefore habeus corpus did not apply, is wholly rejected in In re Gault. The judge in Gault proclaimed that despite what an institution is called (i.e. school, home), it does not hide the fact that juveniles are imprisoned. Gault also established that the condition in "industrial schools" was disturbingly similar to that of a real prison. At the very least, it is questionable whether the state is really saving youths by placing them in the House of Refuge.
- Yu Yat Yang (Vincent)
In “Parens Patriae As a Form of Policing,” Victoria cleverly critiques the juvenile system by citing Ex Parte Crouse, a case from 1839 in which the judicial system rules to remove 15-year-old Mary Crouse, deemed an “infant”, from her father’s willing supervision. In fact, it is rather remarkable how the court was able to corruptly use Parens Patriae in order to override her father’s parental rights and habeas corpus; both of which were ignored since Mary was being sent to a “school,” not a prison. The court’s support for the House of Refuge was undeniable until it finally identified juvenile detention as a form of imprisonment in the 1967 case, In Re Gault.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the clarity with which the essay was written because it easy to identify Victoria’s argument and support. Her argument was incredulous to the manner in which Mary Crouse’s case was handled, as it symbolizes the injustice that youth faced with respect to actions allegedly associated with legal conflict. Also, I liked Victoria’s consistent use of vocabulary as covered in lecture and the readings. This essay was a critique that was representative of the discrepancy between law in the books and law in action.
Marlow McCurdy
Victoria has made me consider new ways of viewing this case and succinctly surmised both the lecture discussion and the case itself. Victoria offers an interesting argument that Parens patriae was used to delegitimize some parents; evidenced by the courts overruling Mary's father's objections. I think that the consideration of the paternal nature of society is an interesting lens to view this particular case through as the state acted as a parent superior to Mary's biological father. This is interesting in a patriarchal society wherein fathers are expected to make decisions (legal or otherwise) for their whole family. The state usurping the father’s power over his family in this case is negative as a daughter is unwillingly and wrongly, taken from her family and imprisoned in a House of Refuge. However, the idea of Parens Patriae may have helped to shift some of the power away from fathers, which could have positive consequences, such as a move away from thinking of children as father’s property (albeit in this case and others the minor is treated as state property, which poses new problems) which has had positive consequences such as child abuse laws banning parents from beating their children.
ReplyDelete- Hannah Gibbons
I, too, agree that Victoria's analysis of Parens Patriae is very good in the way that it brings to light the issue of the state overruling the biological parents of the child in question. While I can clearly comprehend the state's desire to ensure the well-being and safety of a child (a person under the legal adult age), it seems that this is a conflicting issue based on different circumstances. If a child "talks back" to his/her parents and the mother petitions to have the state take the child into its custody, but the father attempts to revoke the petition, as a parent does the father have the right to do this? Typically we would agree and say yes, of course, the father as a biological parent has more authority over the child and so, naturally, the child should be put back in is custody. However, if the facts were altered and it came to be known that this father repetitively abused his child, be it emotionally, physically, sexually- whatever the case may be- would we then still say that the father, as biological parent has the right over the child still or would we argue that it is the duty of the state to remove this child?
ReplyDeleteParens Patriae is a difficult issue to tackle because the purpose of it is positive; however, the unfortunate consequence of it is that it has deprived many children and youth of their rights to fair treatment and justice. (Sorry for the two-part response, my iPad is spazzing out)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would first like to point out that the father challenged the constitutionality of the House of Refuge being able to take custody of Mary, and if a constitutional violation was determined, a writ of habeas corpus would be issued to produce Mary Crouse's body and release her from the House of Refuge. The father did not argue the state violated Mary's right of habeas corpus which would be the denial of the House or Refuge to comply with a writ of habeas corpus that would have been issued if it was determined that the House of Refuge had no right to detain her.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Victoria makes an interesting point regarding the custody of Mary. If the mother determined and claimed to the House of Refuge that she could not handle Mary, but the father determined he could (which I assume by the father’s petition for the release of his daughter) then he should be given custody. Parens Patriae would then only apply and should only apply after the custody of the child is relinquished from their legal guardian or if it is determined that the legal guardian is incapable of caring for the child adequately.
Victoria presents an interesting depiction of parens patriae as “policing.” It is ironic how the court saw this doctrine as a justification for taking away Crouse from her parents without full consent or trial in court in which her father could have presented evidence, in the name of “saving.” It is ironic because the House of Refuge itself modeled criminal prisons of that era. So to distinguish children from criminals by the rights granted to each of them is to say that criminals have more rights than children. In addition, this early case confirmed that the role and obligation of the state as “father” to the children which inhabit it, supersedes the power and privileges of biological parents, and again in the name of “saving. This case is important because it sets the stage for the juvenile court system to follow, as we see parens patriae arise in Fisher and Gault.
ReplyDeleteVictoria raised an important point about the state and the court using subjectivity rather than procedure in determining when a parent’s control has been suspended. There was no trial for Mary and no opportunity for her father to present his evidence for keeping her. This can be seen in the juvenile court system that would dominate the progressive era that Victoria discussed. Juvenile courts depict the judge to be the parens patriae, trusting in his benevolence, time commitment, and concern for the youth in question. However, what Crouse established actually allowed for arbitrary decisions and the treating of youth as criminals come time for sentencing. I like how Victoria frames this paradox as “policing” and how she uses historical context to explain this dominating doctrine.The state wants to “save” children at a time of increasing urbanization and youth population growth, but at the same time find it necessary to police youth as though they were in fact criminals.
In “Parens Patriae As a Form of Policing” Victoria does a great job in outlining Ex Parte Course. I really like that she not only defined her key words such as “Parens Patriae” and “Habeas Corpus”, but she also explained how they pertained to the case with great detail. It helps for us to see the cases the way she does if she explains what the words mean to her. I do agree with her argument that the court was not in the right to use Parens Patriae in order to deny Mary of her rights as well as denying her father any saying in the matter.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree with her statement it takes most of the essay for us to get her argument on the situation. For most of the essay she just gives us a summary of the case (which while extremely important is not a commentary on it) not an commentary or argument on it until the very end. Once she does introduce her commentary one could argue that although the decision of the case is unsettling that does not make it wrong.
I enjoyed Victoria's response to the Ex Parte Crouse case. I find it very strange to see that a fifteen year old girl could still be considered and seen as an infant. Also, if someone is being charged as an infant, how is it that their punishment could be so severe. It was also strange to me that the trial did not follow the law of Habeaus Corpus.
ReplyDeleteIt does not seem logical or lawful to send an individual to jail without even presenting evidence as to why it is necessary to place them in an institution.
I found Victoria's section on paternal compulsion to be interesting. I cant grasp the concept of one parent trying to send their child away without the consent of the other parent. This on top of not having legal proof of the child needing to be put in an institution does not seem lawful. I also believe their is a fine line between rehabilitation and punishment.
-Sabrina Perez
Victoria summarized and analyzed Parens Patriae brilliantly. I especially enjoyed her last paragraph. I found it particularly interesting when she wrote, "Parens patriae takes a dangerous diversion towards subjectivity and away from constitutional doctrine by enhancing the power of judges to pronounce the best interests of youth." I found this interesting for two reasons. The first because I think she did an excellent job bringing to light a major flaw of the juvenile justice system and that's giving judges to much power and discretion over young people's lives.
ReplyDeleteBut the second reason and what I found more interesting was that in describing parens patriae, it almost sounds as if the voice of this critique was projecting a draconian way for juvenile courts to operate in the past. Like these are the illogical ways in which youth were dealt with in the past. However, I would like to add that parens patriae is still extremely prevalent in the United States. So even though the ills of the juvenile justice system are known, parens patriae definitely being one of them, nothing has changed. Which brings me to a couple questions: If we now have a knowledge of how damaging giving a judge so much discretion could be, why does parens patriae still exist? Has parens patriae ever been challenged in a court of law, and if so, under what grounds, and how did the judges rule?
I feel that Victoria provided a good comprehensive overview of the Parens Patriae doctrine while also adding her own analysis and opinion of the court's decision. In my opinion, the subjectivity of this doctrine does provide a serious problem. Why are courts allowed to intervene with parents and the decisions they make for regarding their children. What some parents might consider best interests for their children may be considered not in their best interests by other people. Although there may be extreme cases where severe abuse of a child may be considered by almost everyone as not in a child's best interests, I feel that allowing the court the power to make decisions regarding a child's best interests is too broad. I feel that only specific and severe cases should be the ones that the court makes decisions on, and not those which involve subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I agree with Victoria's analysis that the court's decision of putting Mary into the House of Refuge does ignore her constitutional rights. Furthermore, the doctrine of Parens Patriae hinders both the parent's and child's ability to exercise the rights of freedom which this country is founded upon. A parent would not have the freedom of choice on how to raise their child, as they could be afraid of a case being brought against them that their actions are not in the child's best interests. A child, who has no power in this scenario, is forced to accept whatever decision the court makes. By sentencing a child to the House of Refuge, I feel it takes away his or her rights to freedom.
By examining the case of Ex Parte Crouse, Victoria explained how the doctrine of Parens Patriae was able to get a hold in the juvenile justice system. The notion that the basis of the doctrine was a growing fear seems of critical importance, as other doctrines of dubious constitutionality have been passed during other periods of fear. Furthermore I found myself agreeing deeply with her statements about the shift from a constitutional to a subjective viewpoint. Such a shift allows courts to do as they please without any accountability, as was seen when they stripped Crouse of her right to habeas corpus.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the court had no right to take Crouse away from her father also strikes me as worthy of merit. Given that the father wished to remain responsible for her, her mother’s signing away should have been treated the same as a mother who transfers sole custody to a father.
-Javert Solorzano
I believe the author of this essay did a more than adequate job in her analysis of this case. Her explanation of the terms "Parens Patriae" and "habeas corpus" and their significance to this case are right on point. By letting the reader know that the court supports the Parens Patriae doctrine and therefore is granting the state "a welfare power to supersede parental authority" she demonstrates her understanding of this case. Furthermore she does a good job of elaborating on the situation that landed Mary Crouse in the House of Refuge and how the mother was actually the one responsible for putting Mary in the custody of the state, or in this case the House of Refuge. However there are several points that I thought were unfounded. For example when the author says "the court’s decision that Mary’s internment at the House of Refuge was not punishment, but rehabilitation, ignores her constitutionals rights" she is actually mistaken in calling it a violation of her constitutional rights. The irony of this case is that because the placement in the House of refuge is considered charitable and not punishment, that is exactly why it is not unconstitutional. One must take into consideration the context in which the case was decided.
ReplyDelete