IN THE CURRENT EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF VARIOUS GROUPS IN THE POPULATION, THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS POSES PARTICULARLY COMPLICATED PROBLEMS. WHILE MINORS USED TO BE PRESUMED INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT, OLDER MINORS CAN NOW SOLICIT TREATMENT FOR VENEREAL DISEASES, DRUG ADDICTION, CONTRACEPTION, AND ABORTION WITHOUT GUARDIAN CONSENT. IN MANY CASES OF A MINOR'S VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL, PARENTAL CONSENT IS SOUGHT BY THE INSTITUTION AS A FINANCIAL SECURITY. HOWEVER, IF THE MINOR REFUSES HIS CONSENT, HE IS USUALLY COMMITTED ON THE SOLE APPLICATION OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN. IN RECENT COURT CASES THE 'VOLUNTARINESS' OF COMMITTING A NONCONSENTING MINOR ON THE REQUEST OF HIS PARENTS OR GUARDIANS HAS BEEN QUESTIONED. THE CASE OF BARTLEY V. KREMENS ARGUED THAT PATIENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 19 WERE COMMITTED ON A ADULT'S APPLICATION WITHOUT COUNSEL OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM ( A GUARDIAN TO ACT IN THE MINORS' BEST INTEREST) AND WITHOUT THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED FOR ADULT PATIENTS'. ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO A DISTRICT COURT, IT HAS RECENTLY RULED IN TWO SIMILAR CASES THAT THE CHILD'S ONLY PROTECTION IS THE EXAMINING PHYSICIAN'S MEDICAL JUDGMENTS, VITIATING THE HOPE THAT THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN IN COMMITMENT WOULD RECEIVE GREATER RECOGNITION. HOWEVCER, INCREASED PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE FOR ADOLESCENTS AND CHILDREN WHOSE COMMITMENT IS INITIATED NOT BY A CLOSE RELATIVE BUT BY AN IMPERSONAL STATE AGENCY. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED, AND CASE LAW IS CITED. (SAJ)