AFTER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELD CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION ACT OF 1966 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SUPREME COURT VACATED AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE CLASS DEFINITION IN VIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA'S PASSAGE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT OF 1976. THE REMAND CONSIDERED THE 1976 ACT PLUS REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE 1966 ACT. IT FOUND BOTH UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE COMMITMENT COULD BE INSTIGATED BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN WITHOUT REVIEW BY AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL AND WITHOUT COUNSEL FOR THE JUVENILE. THE REMAND DECISION POINTED OUT THAT ERRORS IN DIAGNOSIS CAN BE MADE AND THAT THE STIGMA OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION FOR A MENTAL CONDITION CAN BE 'A MORE LASTING ABRIDGEMENT OF PERSONAL FREEDOM' THAN IMPRISONMENT FOR A CRIME. THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WERE FURTHER CRITICIZED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR AUTOMATIC POSTCOMMITMENT HEARINGS TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF THE CASE. A DISSENT BY JUSTICE BRODERICK STATED THAT ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD DO LITTLE TO GUARANTEE APPROPRIATE EDUCATION OR TREATMENT FOR MENTALLY ILL OR RETARDED JUVENILES AND MIGHT DISCOURAGE PARENTS FROM SEEKING HELP. HE FELT APPEALS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BUT THAT THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT HEARING SHOULD NOT BE OVERBURDENED WITH DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. (GLR)