Mature-Minor Doctrine

From discussions in my Child, Family, and State course, I have become increasingly interested in the "mature-minor" doctrine. Under this doctrine, when a child appears capable of mature reasoning, that child's wishes will hold more sway with the court.

This doctrine -- and the general principles behind it -- have a broad impact. Most clearly, such a doctrine is applicable in the case of abortion for minor women. The judicial override mechanism exists to allow minor women -- in many states that require parental notification -- to demonstrate their maturity (or that the abortion would be in their best interest).

The mature-minor doctrine is somewhat applicable in other legal areas as well. For example, in tort common law, a youth will be held liable as an adult if they engaged in adult-like behaviors. Thus, if a child is driving a car and gets into a car accident, that juvenile would be held liable in the same way that an adult driver would be liable.

This child-acting-as-adult exception to the status treatment of children as legally dependent could have a deep impact on how children's rights are formed. The juvenile justice system has moved slightly in this direction. The removal mechanisms to place juveniles in adult jeopardy hinges on similar reasoning. The provision of due process rights in juvenile proceedings (from In re Gault), also proceeds on similar reasoning.

The case of juvenile justice demonstrates how this mature-minor doctrine could cut either way for children's rights. Children could be held to higher legal standards, and thus receive harsher punishments, or children could obtain more vestiges of adult rights and find greater legal protections.

My jury is still out on the doctrine, but it is definitely something I'll be thinking about this semester.