CHILDREN and the LAW
CHAPTER 1 STATUS, RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS OF PARENTS
I. Juvenile Courts
A. Typically have exclusive original jurisdiction over four major categories of proceedings
1. ABUSE and NEGLECT
a. Civil in nature; used to determine the State’s claim that a parent or custodian has (1) physically, sexually or emotionally abused the child or (2) failed to provide the child a minimal level of support, education, nutrition, or medical/other care necessary for the child’s well-being.
b. Determines the child’s condition, not the NP’s guilt.
c. Generally confers jurisdiction to decide TPR petitions filed by the State to permanently sever parent-child relationship because of abuse or neglect.
2. ADOPTION
a. Terminates parent-child relationship between child and NP, and creates a new relationship between child and adoptive parents.
b. To adopt, parental rights of BOTH NP must be terminated by consent or court order. So long as ct. approves of adoption as being in the BIOC, the adoption can take place.
3. STATUS OFFENSES
a. Alleges conduct sanctionable only where person committing it is a minor, such as ungovernablility, truancy, runaway behavior, and curfew violations.
4. DELINQUENCY
a. Alleges that a juvenile has committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
B. Some jurisdictions are moving to UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS where all family law proceedings (all above plus divorce, child custody, etc.) are heard before the same judge who has the ability to know the history of the family and have an idea of what is best for the family and importantly the children.
C. Theory of PARENS PATRIAE- Government protection of cc.
1. Historically, this applied to three groups: CC, mental incompetents, and charities.
2. This is evokes because of the need to support and care for CC, not to reform or rehabilitate them.
3. Formed the basic rationale for the operation of the juvenile court system.
4. TODAY: this theory is central to much federal and state regulation of CC’s welfare in abuse, neglect, delinquency, etc.
5. It is employed to advance the best interests of the cc.
D. Cases
1. Meyer v. NE (1923)
a. P charged with violating NE law prohibiting teaching foreign language (German ) in school.
b. Ct. found that the P’s right to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their cc are within the liberty of the Fourteenth Am.
c. As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child’s health by limiting his mental activities.
d. Thus, the statute limiting this teaching of foreign languages was unconstitutional.
e. This considered the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their cc (fundamental right to raise their cc as they see fit) but there was no rational basis to stop this teaching.
f. The ‘liberty’ protected by the DPC includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up CC” and “to control the education of their own.”
2. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
a. OR law required parents to send their cc to public schools.
b. SC held that the Act unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of their cc under their control.
c. The Ct. found that enforcing this law would lead to the destruction of the appellee’s school for on strong reason.
d. The “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of CC under their control.”
3. Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)
a. Case involving the guardian of a minor taking minor to preach and sell pamphlets on the street for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The P said that not allowing this (because Mass. law prohibited it) was EP and DP violation.
b. SC ruled that the law had more control over cc than it did adults. With reference to the public proclaiming of religion upon the streets and other places, the power of the state to control the conduct of cc reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, as is true in the case of other freedoms, and the State has gone to far here. Law was intended to protect all children from having to work and be in the best interest of the children, but ended up discriminating against one religion or one set of children.
c. This case involves the theory of Parens Patriae. This remains the SC leasing decision upholding state authority under the federal constitution to enact child labor laws.
d. This case allows the government to take away the liberty of parents to control their cc completely. Interestingly, the rights of the cc continue to be overlooked.
e. There is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their CC.
f. Parents have the right to teach children religion and share their religion with them.
g. Prince starts to examine children as having rights and used their wants when determining the welfare of the children.
4. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
a. This case vindicated/brought about CC’s substantive due process rights.
b. The case was brought on behalf of segregated cc denied the right to attend school. The SC held that such segregation deprived the CC of the minority group equal educational opportunities.
5. Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
a. SC held that the rights of cc to get into school were valid.
b. This involved the national guard having to come in and let the students get into their school when people protested allowing them entrance.
6. In re Gault (1967)
a. This case vindicated CC’s procedural due process
ld that wearing a black armband to protect the Vietnam War was speech protected by the First Am. The wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the First Am. It is closely akin to “pure speech.” The armband was worn to communicate a massage that those seeing it, in the context of the times, who would understand it as a symbol of protest against the Vietnam War.
d. This “pure speech” has historically been given ultimate constitutional protection. It caused no major disruptions within the school and among other students. The school allowed other students to wear pins supporting political candidates and Nazi swastikas, thereby portraying the idea that it did not intend to strike down all speech, just this particular message.
10. Where a public school student faces suspension for misconduct, the student’s procedural DP rights are exceedingly limited. Goss v. Lopez. Where a state provides an entitlement to a free public education, public school students have at Fourteenth Am. property interest in that entitlement and a liberty interest in not having their reputations discredited by suspension for less than good cause. Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system raises problems requiring care and restraint.
a. Where a student faces suspension for less than ten days, only an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian is required. The student is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.
11. School Dress Codes: school officials defend by saying it is helpful in maintaining discipline, instilling a sense of school and personal pride, weakening gangs by prohibiting the wearing of such colors, and promoting a sense of safety by avoiding violence against CC who wear jewelry or designer and other expensive clothing or who inadvertently wear gang clothing. They also prevent baggy clothes used to hide weapons, prohibit vulgar/offensive language that detract from the educational environment, to boost the esteem of those cc whose parents cannot afford expensive clothing, and to make it easier to identify trespassers.
