Privacy Rights and Children

1. The "right to privacy" is a slippery thing, since it is written in the Constitution as "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure." (Some conservative jurors think the "right to privacy" is too broad a reading of the Fourth Amendment, and that is means something much more limited.) The right to privacy can be waived, and many companies demand that you do, in fact, waive that right when it comes to searching your personal effects on site, even your purse or briefcase or even your own body (e.g. random drug testing). This is not altogether a bad thing; you just need to be sure of where you can have an expectation of privacy, and where you can't.

2. Yes, responsibility for the minor goes hand in hand with authority and control over the minor. Parents are given such sweeping powers over their children because they are fundamentally responsible for their well-being. Overall, I like the notion of tort reform and limits upon legal liability, not just for schools but for all kinds of things.

3. I think my legal scheme would have to have certain limits on what powers could be delegated, and what powers could not be delegated. The law already has certain precedents for this; for instance, medical powers of attorney explicitly delegate medical care decisions to another person, but only when the affected individual is not capable of making those decisions themselves. So maybe certain rights, like strip-searches, would be designated as non-transferrable. I don't necessarily have a problem with delegating big chunks of those powers to schools, camps, day-cares, or other entities that take care of our children. I just think those powers need to be explicitly defined, so that extremes such as strip-searches are excluded or extremely limited. I know in our own school, many of those powers are explicitly defined and agreed-upon; for instance, what medications can be dispensed, and what discipline can be applied, are explicitly agreed upon between the school and the parents. I would gladly allow schools the right to define what parental rights they want to assume, IF there was also genuine school choice and parents had the right to pick a different school . . . but that's another issue.

4. When should a minor be free of the extreme powers of their parents? I did some checking on this; a "child" is legally defined as an "unmarried person under the age of majority--usually eighteen--who has not left home to support themselves." In other words, children remain children until they are ready to be self-sustaining adults. It's like the old parental saw, "As long as you're living in my house, young man, you'll live according to my rules." This seems pretty fair. It recognizes that some people assert their adult independence earlier than others (15 or 16, since that's the earliest most states will allow full-time employment or marriage). But the basic point is the same -- you're a child until you're completely ready to be an adult. Once someone is eighteen, they have the legal right to refuse the authority of their parents . . . and likewise, their parents have the right to refuse them support. I can't think of any parental rights I would want to limit before the age of majority for the child. Maybe freedom of religion, for children over the age of twelve. But all other constitutional freedoms -- speech, assembly, privacy, bearing arms, due process, etc. -- are predicated (IMHO) on an independent, self-sustaining individuals.

Is there any particular constitutional right of an adult that you would want to give a minor, overriding a parent's authority?

For what it's worth, I have known some individuals who got stuck in that awkward over-eighteen-but-still-in-high-school gap. Her parents kicked her out of the house the day she turned eighteen, and she was unable to finish high school. She did get a GED and go on to college.