Parens patriae relates to a notion initially invoked by the King's Bench in the sixteenth century in cases of non compos mentis adults.
[4] The notion dates from at least 1608, as recorded in Coke's report of Calvin's Case, wherein it is said "that moral law, honora patrem… doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patriae.
Such proceedings, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, cannot displace the supervisory power of the court in the exercise of its parens patriae function to the child.
It also provides that the child's best interest shall be the primary consideration in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions.
The concept of the parens patriae suit has been greatly expanded in the United States federal courts beyond those that existed in England.
Thus, in a series of cases after Louisiana v. Texas the Supreme Court followed that precedent to allow states to sue as parens patriae: The Supreme Court recognized a different kind of parens patriae suit in Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co.[11] While the earlier cases were common-law actions to prevent or repair harm to a state's "quasi-sovereign" interests.
[15]Therefore, states such as Massachusetts had standing as parens patriae to sue EPA to seeks to require it to regulate to protect their coastlines.
[16] In Pennsylvania v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc.,[17] the Fourth Circuit held that several state attorney generals were proper parens patriae plaintiffs to sue a group of car dealers for price fixing, in order to recover damages for their citizen injured by overcharges.
The court held that because plaintiffs were authorized to pursue antitrust litigation against defendants on behalf of their states' natural-person residents under both 15 U.S.C.