Law · Legal Information · Justice
 

Parens patriae

Parens patriae (Latin): A British common law creation whereby the courts have the right to make unfettered decisions concerning people who are not able to take care of themselves.

Parens patriae (Latin): A British common law creation whereby the courts have the right to make unfettered decisions concerning people who are not able to take care of themselves.

For example, court can make custody decisions regarding a child or an insane person, even without a statute to allow them to do so, based on their residual, common law-based parens patriae jurisdiction.

Judicially:

"From the earliest time, the sovereign, as parens patriae, was vested with the care of the mentally incompetent. This right and duty ... is founded on the obvious necessity that the law should place somewhere the care of persons who are not able to take care of themselves.

"In early England, the parens patriae parens patriae jurisdiction was confined to mental incompetents, but its rationale is obviously applicable to children and, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the Lord Chancellor in the seventeenth century, he extended it to children under wardship, and it is in this context that the bulk of the modern cases on the subject arise. The jurisdiction was later vested in the provincial superior courts of this country."
E v. Eve, 1986 2 SCR 388


And:

"The parens patriae jurisdiction is ... founded on necessity, namely the need to act for the protection of those who cannot care for themselves. The courts have frequently stated that it is to be exercised in the "best interest" of the protected person, or again, for his or her "benefit" or "welfare". While the Superior Court retains a residual jurisdiction to use the parens patriae power, it will not do so lightly. This jurisdiction is to be exercised to protect children and other vulnerable individuals, not their parents. The courts have determined that parens patriae is available in two situations: to fill a legislative gap or on judicial review."
Rutherford v Ontario
aka MDR v Ontario
(2006) 270 DLR 4th 90

Latest LagMag headlines:

Pro Bono Hypocrisy

Envelope please! (Drum roll.) The award for pro bono works goes to ... John Doe, Esquire and Q.C. ..... because he has the highest rates to his paying clients and he can afford to charade as a poverty avenger!

End of the World Law

As we all march to our lemming-like demise upon the cliff of environmental disaster, a path of law back to safety may yet be found.

Polygamy Now Safely Brewed In British Columbia?

The Provincial government's top law enforcement officer toys with not prosecuting polygamists and bigamists, anticipating a Charter ass-kicking in Court. If so, law is orphaned and we all suffer.


Read earlier headlines »
Subscribe to stay in touch »


Switch to variable width

Switch to fixed width

Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). It is not intended to be legal advice and you would be foolhardy to rely on it in respect to any specific situation you or an acquaintance may be facing. In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. If you have a real situation, this information will serve as a good springboard to get legal advice from a lawyer.

top