Reference no: EM131560763
Question -Discuss with the class your first readtion when read the lecture note description in the Supreme court case of Ex parte Crouse. (Here it is as reference for your discussion):
In Ex parte Crouse (1838), a woman asked the court to incarcerate her daughter because the mother was incapable of taking care of her. The father objected and argued it was illegal to incarcerate a child without the benefit of a trial.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, rejected the father's argument, stating that when a parent is incapable of doing his or her job, the state has a duty, under parens patriae, to step in and take action for the betterment of both the juvenile and the community.
More important, the court noted that the rights of the parents are superseded by the rights and interests of society. This stance was reaffirmed after the initiation of the juvenile court in Commonwealth v. Fisher (1905).
In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that when the objective of the state is not to punish or simply restrain a youth but rather to provide care and protection, the state has a right and duty to step in and take custody of a youth.
In essence, if the intent is to help the youth, parens patriae allows the juvenile court wide latitude to intervene in the life of the youth and the family.