The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Children's Rights & Mental Health

says as as funding for this program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and by grants from exxon corporation allied chemical corporation and the corporation for public broadcasting he's

been reading in most of the united states parents have the power to commit their children to mental institutions without independent hearings that the us supreme court is about to decide whether that is constitutional activists in the children's rights the old claim that too many children are committed to mental hospitals who should not be there but they stayed too long and of their problems just get worse they were children given the same rite of independent hearing with attorneys an independent psychiatric opinion that out also before they can be committed two cases testing this argument and now before the high court how their results could decide the fate of thousands of youngsters with mental or emotional disorders right should a child have it his

parents or guardians think he belongs in a mental hospital run the state alone around the country right now is this thirty eight states give the final say on juvenile commitment the parents another third parties similar laws in seven other states are being challenged in the courts only five states now require juvenile to have the same kind of due process procedures afforded adults ensure a supreme court decision to that effect would have an enormous fallout nationally the case before the high court is actually the combination of one from george and another from pennsylvania in both the lower courts ruled in favor of granting the children those rights the georgia case directly involved in williston committed by family when he was six the other by state agency when he was set was done under casual circumstances and they were kept there long after they needed debate one is now dead the other is fifteen and lives in a foster home in georgia pennsylvania case was brought by lawyers for twelve juveniles committed to a state mental institution there ron

one of those lawyers in fact the lawyer who pleaded that case before the supreme court on october tenth was david for liquor and independent attorney who founded a group called mental patient civil liberties project why do children need independent hearings before committing to mental institutions children placed in mental institutions are the only people in the united states today you can be locked up in confined without a lawyer here because of the dangers of her the extreme deprivation inherent in institutionalization and the stigma that follows any person including children for the rest of their lives the children feel that they have a right to some protection from wrongful commitment and from an appropriate committees and the dangers are not only the children who are not mentally ill mentally retarded will be confined but the children who may have some disability are confined in appropriate places that might be more

assertive than what they need how many children are not inappropriately can find in such institutions for the mentally retarded an expert told the lower court that there is no necessity for any inconvenience for the mentally ill and is supposed to have a relatively good system of treating the mentally ill and return to visit now that's elaine his reputation as fairly good that no matter how good an institution is the deprivation of liberty it still say they're either thousand children across the country who are institutions who don't need to be and when place there without ever getting a chance to tell their side of the story to an impartial tribunal why would parents do that and they simply trying to be rid of the children on a sincere and committing them there's no doubt that there are some parents whose motivations are not good who are militias who simply want to abandon their children to the state well one of the planets in our case for example i had a mother who

had been hospitalized himself many times in the hospital so that the boy's problems were the parents but usually that's not the case usually what happens is the parent is at the end of his or her rope doesn't know what else to do goes to professional who suggest the easy way out which is simply institutionalized child for the retarded somewhat different for the retarded parents without the finances without knowledge of community alternatives often institutionalize a child out of ignorance out of frustration with the lack of other services for their children weren't happens in your experience when children are provided with lawyers and independent hearings each of the children that i've represented in a number of commitment cases and courts are where they haven't been signed by their parents and again their release and not been institutionalized overall on how you know if they should not have been that it wasn't just your persuasiveness is an attorney which i'll get them out of the hospital well i hope i did a

good job but i also hope that the courts and automated just decision to overall win we look at statistics involving adult committee hearings and what happens when there is a warrior for the doctor and when there isn't we find that in ninety percent of the cases where a warrior is involved the person subject a commitment get a much better recommendation from the psychiatrist much less a good result from the court the presence of a lawyer the presence of proper procedures veto wrongful commitment and help the courts are when everybody is making the decision they could just decision in each case an individualized decision one that's not subject to the biases prejudices and conflicts that you have when parents and doctors alone make the decision i think your job five the state of pennsylvania on the other side say is it entirely differently and the man who argued that position before the supreme court was going to buy new deputy attorney general norman watkins with watkins why should show not have the

same due process rights as adults in mental institutions that plays well do it i must say the david and i have the same starting point i had no desire nor his pennsylvania insane children wrongfully trigger the wrongfully admitted to consummate you know health facilities where we differ is in how we eat how we guard against these errors first of all we must recognize that the outset that what we're talking about here our medical problems medical diagnoses and prescription and medical treatment therefore the question becomes relatively simple are we going to entrust the difficult medical decisions that are involved in these cases to lawyers and judges who are completely untrained in this area or we get a trusted to the professionals my view is that it makes an awful lot more sense to entrust the professionals have even protect the rights though of the individual juvenile if you do that well presumably the year examining physician a psychiatrist and i should point out that in pennsylvania

there must be an examination with specific recommendations for treatment of these very psychiatrist has a professional obligation to make gear as accurate diagnosis as he possibly can and to prescribe the appropriate medical treatment therefore we will we trust the medical profession with a very very serious decisions for children in the physical near a physical medicine and i don't see that we should distinguish here on the basis of fear and i should point out that they are the experts that mr ferland are referred to not one of them examined one single child in pennsylvania not one of them are viewed the records of one single job counseling and in fact mr ferrara lawyer for these children never at any time availed himself of the opportunities to challenge the propriety of the treatment that his clients are receiving more in fact choose to have a child released from treatment in fact those clients remain in treatment today hope are receiving the benefits of the truth you don't say then that the

state union in this case the state of pennsylvania but the state and the broader science also has any role to play in making these kinds of decisions settling out unless there is strong evidence of either parental abuse or professional irresponsibility it how do you see the parent's rights and this kind of situation why to use the term parent writes is a little misleading because starring with the presumption of adversity between the parent child i don't think that that's the proper place to start we assume in every area of life the parents active in their child's best interests the rights that are involved are really rights of the family not to behead intruded upon in some of its most grave decisions without that without just that without good reason in your position in a nutshell is that it's possible to create a system that does not involve a legal system that involves primarily the medical system that would protect the rights that the controllers talk about the rights of improper or illegal incarceration

of a child for a form that the overall risk absolutely in fact and counseling in the law very specifically requires wanted in most cases two prior examinations and the law also requires that the physician a psychiatrist or a psychologist specify why the particular treatment that is being recommended is the most appropriate least restrictive treatment that is available for that child furthermore the law requires periodic reviews for the mentally ill child every thirty days the treatment teams program for the job must be reviewed professional to see this continuing to be appropriate and that the goals for the team has set up for the chowder being that and jerry i've read reviews also required for them or retarded what i'm saying is that we are dealing with a medical problem we all have the same goals in mind not to go to you had children undergoing appropriate treatment us look at it rationally and of all appropriate and rational means to safeguard against these so these egregious

risks and i think the ensuing it was known that i like it the contours is not just a legal one psychologists who specialize in this field are also divided on whether committal decision should remain with parents or be made independently mara rothenberg is a clinical psychologist who's worked with emotionally disturbed children for thirty years she's the founder of the blueberry treatment center an alternative to mental hospitals in europe said it was rosenberg what scientists are going to come down i'd say you know i think that gentleman from pennsylvania starts off with a wrong statement not all parents are looking for the best thing for their count some parents don't hate their children some parents do love their children are at wit's end than some parents of very hopelessly searching for an answer but it's very interesting nobody talks about the trial

i don't believe that gender whenever saw a child who has been hospitalized and then for five or six years and then brought out of the institution it's all gross something you never you could ever imagine because the child is suddenly out and doesn't even know how to behave or how to move forward to deal series your point that it is not how a child should be committed to a large mental institution in our what alternatives there are dozens of interest yes yes mr johnson to mental institutions all well in some if you call an institution a small institution like we have well we have eighteen children for instance and where are the child is a complete war with japan and then you should get a lot of the house because he's no good to the bear and the parrot has been good to him so some songs i must be institutionalized in serious in some way and how would you have that done if the job was going to be committed to some institution how would you have that done in an in in the way of having

them of having independent examination and a court hearing as we just heard suggested or having the parents decide with the doctors they can be mistakes no not the parents decide to the doctor because i have i've seen some children whether parents decided with the doctor and the children were institutionalized for a very long time now and sort of communal hearing between the even the parents could be in the air in the psychology psychiatry is twitter and the attorney general is so you are in favor of some kind of independent hearing not being mandatory not just committed by the parenting that alone definitely not definitely see what do you estimate how many children you think are wrongly in mental institutions at the moment who should not be in such institutions i don't know how many but an awful lot because we played them out quite often and it's quite a

message what kinds of conditions they've been sued for you for that they should not have been hers is heard there were two children brother sister were put in are the parents died and the forced the parents could not the carillon and they were placed in the state hospital and they stay there until marcia lowery guatemala kind of the alien eileen age case are then there are kids who are brought by her mother into court like thirteen times underpins petition and there's no place to put them and the kids wandering the streets and again that's another side of the same coin then there are kids call me up and say hey i've been already been fourteen times get me to some place because i don't know what i'm gonna do next is that all of these things but are there conditions like juvenile delinquency or autism or retardation for which children are committed and should not bacon that yes very definitely you

have quite a few distinct children committed as reported in the various state hospitals for retirement and allegedly then they treated as a new regarded than nothing ever comes to the surface no no life comes this sort of torture porn your show you would like some form of independent hearing before children are committed to institutions but in general is it's your children should be permitted for senate five robin said the mental health professionals like politicians like patches do not speak with one voice on this issue another view now from dr paul weisberg president elect of the american society for adolescent psychiatry which filed a friend of the court brief in the supreme court case your position on the issues what is it he's come into their own in terms of being able to decide things for themselves in a number of different ways sixteen month in her car and eighteen one vermeer may

have sex and cross the street violence over the street isn't to rot mental illness tends to complicate and delay the process of decision making and judgment taken by the adolescent so somewhere along the line there are lessons the allison must be treated as an adult in terms of there is due process and in terms of the rights afforded jeremiah by the courts but to say that every adolescent must have these rights is going to deprive the adolescent often of an opportunity eight to regain his family because families and adolescents are always at war you're not an adolescent in a non interference in some way but as well as the two hands are punching we're also two hands that are raised both child a parent and a parent child and it often happens that in his adversary hearing is that the two hands that are bracing lose touch with his touch with each other and the consequences are class coalition

are not there and sharp you're not in favor of this being a legal matter i believe that that that the courts must take a protective measures at certain times of the iranian special cases not as routine as routine but a special times for instance have one is is trying to distinguish between a long term and short term was published forty five days as the time that we chose in our brain at that point there must be here for you to determine now hearing before before edit your judgment with with counsel representing a job because of the objections of an internationally and to extend that hospitalization unfortunately have some marriage around the country as a whole not our best hospitals and many hospitals how widespread is that they're not very widespread and i guess less widespread every year is the quality of education and capacity for care increases but to have only short term gospel versions available without here makes a tremendous amount of sense

because then you you again the togetherness of the family with a child and if you're going to go ahead for a long term hospitalization or want to then the child deserves all the due process rights what would be the harm of having a legal process from the very beginning only the heart of the country the potential harm as the vigil for lee the psychiatrists who's made about these matters on the past and i want to hear it but i think that the main harm is in terms of polarization and that could be avoided if the child and parent or family as a whole and they kept in a negotiating posture then actually lost elections or shorter and social disruptions a rumor spreads fact is you know there are some who suggest that the only reason that the legal issue has risen it is because the mental health professionals have

not honored their jobs very well in terms of procedures on commitment procedures on review once a child gets and that is that true what saves it is a very complex issue of course i don't believe that the amount of profession care is more than a share in the face i believe that other factors involved and probably stronger factors i have to do with the tendency toward our intrusion process rights issues into not a loss position as a whole the adult patients got real council an end of the whole issue of the lead lawyers wandering the halls last polls saying anybody here for here that's been known for a number of years and so i think that the children adolescents are getting counted as it was last steptoe processes the normal reading and final factor think a social and that is that as our families have become less and less abel because the family has shrunk down to a retired family run an extended family and their family's income lessen was able to

to maintain the traditional securities society has stepped in the takeover and promises it is a legal process and the process of course was the project it comes up with agencies one agency wants to commit a child we recommend that they're always be here not just up to forty five days that's a case where the family has already failed in terms of being able to go hear a contractual system that mr verleger on the point that once you've introduced an adversarial proceeding and polarize the situation how does a child's opposing he wins in your sense you've won a case for and what is he didn't want to go back and live with her parents over whom he's just scored a victory in new jersey where children now do you have the right to warrior new hearing before commitment the new jersey department public advocate polled parents after the process to see what the parents thought of the idea of having hearing having a lawyer for the child and uniformly the parents almost

without exception said they were glad i'm hearing glenn warrior for their child because the hearing helps the child and helps the parent that helps the parent relieve the guilt and responsibility of making such an awesome decision for a child with a parent is already confused about and it helps the parent and the child and the court find inappropriate place so that in the end everybody's needs can be satisfied as a professional who deals with children and their parents do you think that after having gone through such an adversary situation the parents saying we think you should be in a mental hospital a jobless lawyers saying no and that they can then come together and have the family regained as otherwise gorgeous interested i think they can because i think they can say you wouldn't be worried about the other is the situation that you know no no because you look sometimes you can straighten out the whole problem in this kind of a discussion with a lawyer of being present another person present neolithic apparent will commit a child because he smokes pot

or are because he is played in place will cure would have equal endowed my god she stays out late at night alone we put a perspective into the things parents will commit children their mental institutions for those letters yes yes yes yes very much the surge or living with parents who were given well that's the question army of the point of all of whether it should be after forty five days or whether the beginning what is your reply to her doctor weisberg suggested it should be the review should be earned here and should be up to forty five aspects like shutting the barn door after the horses that for the child erroneous lee committed for a listers the big mistake the forty five days can be like an attorney and a child can be hurt or injured even during those few weeks in a child who's an appropriately placed the institution isn't sure miracle valley in just be out of such a terrifying

jarring experience at the forty five days to us don't protect anybody that we're hearing here how much a challenge our very first forty five days because in actuality that set up for him that after forty five days as part of the issue here then that the countdown occurs and the child is not in the same position that a long term patience committed totally to the institution until after that hearing has happened is their own extended evaluation and in all hospitals to put a child in for evaluation went all in for evaluation for three or five or seven days or even longer necessary thirty days many records of order this is a very traditional and familiar part of the procedure normal those rules were done on that at all not at all i wonder if

this kind gentleman has ever been in this scandal position himself you can put a kid in for three days even into a hospital where he's being sort of torn and pulled apart and tested and look to act as if he were some kind of a strange bird you can do that and say is kind of the same afterwards literature we're talking to hear about children or adolescents are both on the outside of the adolescent has quite a different response than the thousands and in our brave there's no question that under the age of forty that the child should have dominion both parents it's it's around age of fourteen somewhere in that area of the child begins to assume to build capacity and actually position where he can be you can negotiate you can be with the lawyer i work with a lawyer and former lawyer but you know it just seems to me that there's the rothenberg

doesn't seem to have much respect for our profession yeah it seems that she's assuming that the psychiatrist or psychologist will act are irrationally or actor against the best interests of the patient like iraq for mr watkins there is a there is a duty that the physicians tara trujillo is patient having any fast we can presume that in most cases it is misused and it has not been abducted iran will know in many cases it is misused in some cases if it is misused but that's not the point of the point is it if a kid is fourteen years old a fifteen years old and it commits some kind of art a disturbing attack towel it's just i'm sorry it's just the growth and to need to think of what you can do with a lock him up to forty five days in examining what about the point the journalist were just makes that job

that you have sufficient respect your profession because your profession often concurs in such decisions it i have a great deal of respect to various people in my profession i don't have some for some people in my profession i don't know i don't also job if that if that argument is correct then adults should be committed also with no lawyer hearing your protection but the point is to give children like old uncle a chance to tell their side of the story and have an impartial person we're just about to render we hadn't heard from for mr juan gonzales is unfortunately like to point out that the year institution involving pennsylvania house was in fact a smaller than nine part of the population and the one that the doctor often works as a chill literally nine children this facility and have for the children here the next i would like it to say that what we're talking about here are presumptions out without any evidence whatsoever we're going to displace the decision making of the decision making

authority of parents an area that is traditionally were relegated to the parents we're displaced early decision making of medical professionals in an area that is that is always been relegated to medical professionals were replaced the pearl decision making with the word meno may have the benefit of knowing a child three or four days and replace the doctors decision making if you're the judge here mr watkins unchartered ridge or we're going there i'm afraid i have to leave the supreme court in its wisdom to decide this one of them out we can take it any further thank you both in washington for joining us this evening to niger to both events often i will do that tomorrow night and how many mueller report was produced by wnet and w va they are solely responsible for its content the funding for this program has been provided by the station and other public television stations and by transferring exelon corporation

allied chemical cooperation and the corp are in fb