Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has upheld a statute that requires clinical evidence to determine if a juvenile has a substance use disorder. In specific cases, the SJC affirmed the commitment of E.S., citing the serious risks associated with fentanyl. However, the SJC reversed the commitment for J.P., finding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a high likelihood of serious harm.

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently upheld a state law. This statute requires that clinical evidence must be presented to establish if a juvenile has a substance use disorder. In a specific case, the court affirmed the commitment of a juvenile identified as E.S., based on the risks associated with fentanyl use. However, the court reversed the commitment decision for another juvenile, J.P., determining there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a likely risk of serious harm.

Summary

The highest court in Massachusetts has confirmed a law requiring medical evidence to determine if a young person has a substance use disorder. The court upheld the commitment of one juvenile, E.S., due to the risks associated with fentanyl. However, the court overturned the commitment of another juvenile, J.P., because there was not enough proof to show a strong likelihood of serious harm.

Summary

The highest court in Massachusetts made a decision about a law. This law says that doctors must show clear proof when deciding if a young person has a drug problem. The court said this law is correct.

The court agreed with the decision to keep one young person, named E.S., in care. This was because of the serious danger linked to fentanyl.

However, the court did not agree with the decision to keep another young person, named J.P., in care. There was not enough proof to show that J.P. was in serious danger.