The authors, co-counsel for the state of Pennsylvania in the child-commitment case to be heard this fall by the Supreme Court, outline the background of the case and present the state's arguments for preserving the rights of parents to commit their children to mental institutions. They warn of the potential psychological harm to both family and child in pitting one against the other in a formal commitment hearing. They also content that the lower-court ruling that granted due-process rights to children causes more problems than it solves. The decision, for example, effectively abolishes the state's program of respite care for mentally retarded youths.