The government has a strong interest in regulating and monitoring the operations of private residential facilities for juveniles. 

The health, safety, and general welfare of minors are of matters of sufficient public importance to warrant government regulation and oversight of private corporations into whose custody minors are placed for transportation, confinement, education, or treatment. 

A massive teen reprogramming industry has developed in the United States.  It is estimated that this industry consists of more than 400 so-called "behavior modification" facilities, "boarding schools," and "treatment" centers which confine thousands of minors. 

The vast majority of these "troubled teenagers" are institutionalized with the authorization of one or both parents.  There has been no judicial determination of wrongdoing by the juveniles.  They are simply locked up for months or years by frustrated parents who have fallen for the slick advertising of sophisticated profiteers who promise to reprogram the minors into obedient conformists.

These facilities are generally not licensed or monitored by any governmental agency.  Because most parents live hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from these institutions, the parents themselves are not able to supervise how their children are being treated.  In reality, the children are no longer in the "custody and control" of their parents but rather have corporate custodians who control their daily lives.

Some of the corporations which run these facilities claim that the government lacks authority to regulate them because the constitution protects the parents right to "custody and control" of their children.  This argument lacks merit for several reasons.

First, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that parental rights of "custody and control" are absolute.  In Prince v. Commonwealth, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) the Supreme Court observed:

"It is the interest of youth itself, and of the whole community, that children be both safeguarded from abuses and given opportunities for growth into free and independent well-developed men and citizens.  Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor, and in many other ways. . . [T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare; and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."

Therefore, even when children are living at home and under the direct supervision of their parents, the state does have constitutional power to limit parental authority.  The state, however, may not unreasonably interfere with "the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 511-512 (1925).

The need for the government to protect children from potential abuse, and to insure that they are properly educated and cared for, increases as the actual custody and control of the parents over their children decreases.  While it may be assumed that parents will look out for the best interests of children in their custody, there can be no such presumption associated with a corporation which is housing dozens or even hundreds of children for a profit.

Parents may not assign their constitutional rights, which are personal in nature, to a corporate entity.  Corporations, which are themselves created by statute, can be regulated by statute. 

Therefore, once a parent relinquishes custody of a child to a "transportation service" which then takes a child to a private facility and turns custody of the child over to a corporate entity, the role of the state, as parens patriae increases significantly. 

Parens patriae is a Latin term which literally means "father of the country."  The legal doctrine of parens patriae involves the government acting as a guardian for children within its jurisdiction.  The need for the state to act in this capacity is amplified when parents neglect or abuse their child, or when the parents abandon the child or otherwise surrender their personal supervision of the child. 

Many of these juvenile residential facilities portray themselves as "boarding schools" or "academies" and all of them appear to have some educational component to their programs.  It is unquestionable that the government has the authority to regulate all schools, including private schools.

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the United States Supreme Court observed that “No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.”

Therefore, state and local governments surely have the authority to regulate these juvenile facilities in their capacity as schools.  But government authority is much broader than this. 

The police power of the state includes the authority to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of children within its jurisdiction.  Furthermore, the authority of the government to regulate business entities and corporations is without question.  As a result, state and local governments have the power to require juvenile residential facilities to be licensed, to comply with reasonable regulations, and to submit to inspections.

State and local governments have the power to require corporate compliance with laws regulating child labor, prohibiting child neglect, abuse, or endangerment, and statutes protecting human rights.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce.  Most parents send their "troubled teenagers" to juvenile residential facilities in other states which may be located hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the family home.  As a result, the federal government has the power to regulate the "transportation companies" which move the children out of state as well as the juvenile facilities which generate most of their revenues from out of state placements.

The question, therefore, is not whether federal, state, and local governments have the authority to regulate and monitor privately owned residential facilities for juveniles.  However, there are three issues to be examined: 

(1) Are statutes and regulations already on the books which protect the health, safety, welfare and human rights of children confined in privately operated residential facilities; (2) If so, are they being adequately enforced by appropriate agencies; and (3) If the answer to questions (1) or (2) is negative, then what can be done to improve the situation.

the Emancipation Project is exploring these issues in cooperation with elected officials, administrative agencies, and nonprofit advocacy organizations, as well as juveniles, parents and others who have been affected by this . 

The welfare of these "forgotten children" should not be left to chance.  That would be unacceptable for a society which professes that children are our most valuable resource and promises that "no child will be left behind."