Kids Given More Rights Than Adults

I think your right to be outraged. Stupid courts telling parents not to be parents. What next, everyone under the age of 18 is a ward of the state and lives in government controlled housing and schooling?

And this is the very definition of "liberal activist judges." They make law, not interpret it. How insane!

And this is the very definition of "liberal activist judges."

How did this become a party issue? How do you know the judges are liberal? Are there no conservative judges? I went to the website for the court and googled the names of the justices, but I couldn't find any political affliation for any of them.

They make law, not interpret it.

Actually, according the courts finding the mother was in violation of the state's "Privacy Act." Washington is one of 11 states that require "all party" consent when "listening" to a conversation.

There is no "minor" provision in the law. If the courts had ruled the other way, they'd be writing law rather than interpretting it. Your real beef is with the Privacy Act, not the judges.

Washington is one of 11 states that require "all party" consent when "listening" to a conversation.

Sounds like there is a whole lot of interpretation going on here.  I can't fathom any law intending to keep parents from listening to what their children say in their own home.  If minors require parental consent for any legal action, how could they give "consent" for listening to their conversation?  I think the court had their heads way up their asses on this one.

Another example of parental hand-tying.  We are supposed to raise our kids well and teach them to be responsible results....but we are being given more and more stipulations on what we can and cannot do, and the kids know this!  We, as parents, are being manipulated not only by our kids but by the freakin' legal and social system too!

I'm not into beating my kids or tying them up or depriving them of food or water.....but I think that I, as a law-abiding, responsible adult, should be able to raise my children as I think best. If that means eavesdropping on their phone calls or monitoring their email, then I'm going to do it, law or not.

How did this become a party issue? How do you know the judges are liberal? Are there no conservative judges? I went to the website for the court and googled the names of the justices, but I couldn't find any political affliation for any of them.

We know the judges aren't conservative because of their ruling. It's as clear as that.

Actually, according the courts finding the mother was in violation of the state's "Privacy Act." Washington is one of 11 states that require "all party" consent when "listening" to a conversation.

I hope more wacky interpretations are made like this to prevent parents from parenting. They shouldn't be allowed to enter the rooms of their children without the complete consent of the children either. After all, if I entered the room of a complete stranger without their consent, that'd be considered breaking and entering, and we know that there is no difference between one's children and a complete stranger.

Having been through hell a few years ago trying to control an uncontrollable child and encountering the same sort of problems, I am absolutely appalled at this court's ruling. We need the support of our legal system if we are going to have any hope of raising our children in a safe, secure environment. If parental control cannot be enforced by parents, we have lost our children, pure and simple. Your kid needs to know that you are the final authority. No child should be abused, but kids now use accusations of abuse all the time to undermine parental authority, in part precisely because they are not stupid and understand the significance of things like this.

Cheers,
Daiwa

With rulings the courts ruling parents are now breaking the law when they monitor what their children are doing. Of course when the child does commit a crime the parents will be held accountable for the child’s actions. We have now created a catch 22 for parents trying to raise children today. It is time to take a step back and start looking at the consequences that we will face with such “micro-parenting” being dictated from the bench - SD

Of course when the child does commit a crime the parents will be held accountable for the child’s actions.

Great point, SaintDirty. Parents can be held criminally accountable for a number of things children do without their knowledge. So which is it? Are minors responsible for their own actions, which includes adult privileges as well as consequences, or are they too young and thus parent's responsiblity?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is a plan by the Enlightened Government to take control of the lives of the children from the country bumpkin parents who know nothing about parenting. (This actually sounded more serious than I hoped, so I'll add something of substance...) I don't understand why so many people want to make parenting harder than it already it is, and for what? To tell children that parents have no control over them?

I second what iamheather said.  Great point SD.  Parents can't win and the biggest losers will be the kids and the society they will create.  I am so sick of the government sticking its nose in families' business.  Look at the way society is going...they are doing a super job aren't they?!  They make stupid calls like this one in the name of protecting the kids' rights and then they hand abused babies back to their parents over and over again until they end up dead.  Seems like they drop the ball at every opportunity.

Parents should be able to raise their children as they see fit.  Of course I don't mean they should be able to abuse them but this crap of kids having the right to privacy just doesn't fly.  If I am going to be held responsible for my children, I should have the right to arm myself with as much information about them as possible and the right to discipline them.  Like Daiwa said, kids need to know where the buck stops and that needs to be at home not in a court.  If they don't like what their parents tell them, they shouldn't be lead to believe that a lawyer is going to make their parents concede.

While I do not favor this ruling, do parents really need to listen to their children's own private conversations to be good mothers and fathers?

While I do not favor this ruling, do parents really need to listen to their children's own private conversations to be good mothers and fathers?

Sometimes, yes. You obviously don't have kids TheFazz.

Knowing my own age, I should hope not! If I did, then maybe my mother would need to have done a bit more eavesdropping...

Anyway, I do not see the need for each and every child's casual conversation with a friend would need to be monitored.

Anyway, I do not see the need for each and every child's casual conversation with a friend would need to be monitored.

Noone said that was the case.  Did you read the story?  The mom suspected this kid of a crime and listened in when he called her daughter.  Makes perfect sense to me.  If some known trouble maker of any kind calls my child, I am going to listen in.  Not only was she hoping to nail the kid, but I bet she was hoping to prevent him from getting her daughter into some kind of mess with him.  I would say that is damn good parenting.

TheFazz, like it or not, parents don't have to let their kids use the phone at all in the first place.  It isn't a right.  Cable TV isn't a right.  Internet access isn't a right.  No wonder so many people have "need" and "want" so messed up these days.

What the judge seemed to be ignoring was it wasn't the daughter's phone to begin with. Apparently now, if I pay for the line, it belongs to anyone who happens to be using it.

On the one side, parents are told that we should be held responsible for our kids' actions, we should know where they are and what they are doing 100% of the time. At the same time, we have no right to pry into their lives.

How about a little logic here.

Actually, according the courts finding the mother was in violation of the state's "Privacy Act." Washington is one of 11 states that require "all party" consent when "listening" to a conversation.

The law is that consent must be given from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.  It was intended to prevent people from recording phone conversations (especially business transactions).  Saying that monitoring what minors say can still be considered an interpretation.  I remember a day when minors were just that.  It was the "legal" age when you started to have rights of a citizen.  Now the kids and criminals have more rights than the adults and victims.  When did that happen?  And people wonder why the world is so very messed up.

I like these two bits of the article put together:
"My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time." ...... "I don't think the state should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union.  He noted that parents can find other ways to control their teenagers: "They can restrict the use of the telephone, for example."

Yeah, because restricting their telephone use is going to set them straight!  Where do these people come from?

If the original law had been written clearer then this issue would not have arisen. It is not a judges job to re-write the law and if the defense lawyer found loopholes in the law which allowed the minor to be released then it's not the judges fault.

Theis case is the exact opposite of an activist judge. The judge clearly allowed the law the letter of the law to be applied. Sadly that letter of the law does not seem to be what the writers had in mind. I suggest the authorities redraft that law fairly quickly and people stop harping on about judges doing their job.

What I don't understand is why the case should be dropped because of that single issue. I accept taht the testiomony of the money about what was said on the phone could be ruled inadmissable, but what about any other information the police collected. Surely this should have been used to make the case itself? This is what I see as a problem with US justice. One problem anywhere in the case and the whole thing gets thrown out.

Paul.

IANAL. Wire tapping laws. You have the right to record your side of the conversation on your phone, but not the other side without their permission. Sounds to me like the judge did the right thing for the greater good. If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

I knew someone that was going through a divorce and her husband tapped their phone lines to find out what his wife was saying. Her husband must have known something, as he only tapped the outgoing. Had he tapped/recorded both outgoing and incoming he'd be in serious trouble.

If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

Minors dont have rights per se.  SO they cannot have less rights.  The get their rights when they become of legal age.

Yeah, because restricting their telephone use is going to set them straight! Where do these people come from?

Yeah, we could keep our teens from using the phone then they will just run away from home and we will have a much easier time keeping them in check.  That will work out well.  I can't imagine these judges have dealt with kids of their own. 

Sounds to me like the judge did the right thing for the greater good. If this had been allowed it would have set a precedence, that would allow wire tapping on minors, in effect giving minors less rights.

A) Noone tapped anything, the mom merely listened in Minors do have less rights.  They can't sign a legal contract of any kind without parental consult.  Minors are not the same as adults...period.

We know the judges aren't conservative because of their ruling. It's as clear as that.

Really? So because they followed the law as it was written in the State of Washington, they are liberals? That's a bit rich, don't you think?

Sounds like there is a whole lot of interpretation going on here. I can't fathom any law intending to keep parents from listening to what their children say in their own home. If minors require parental consent for any legal action, how could they give "consent" for listening to their conversation? I think the court had their heads way up their asses on this one.

No, there's no interpretration. The law has been revised twice, and neither time did the legislature decide to include a provision excluding minors from the guarantees of the law (and it was considered). Legislative intent was pretty clear. Like I said before, it's not the courts you should be annoyed with, it's the legislature.

No, there's no interpretration. The law has been revised twice, and neither time did the legislature decide to include a provision excluding minors from the guarantees of the law (and it was considered). Legislative intent was pretty clear. Like I said before, it's not the courts you should be annoyed with, it's the legislature.

I have to agree with you in this case.  I have friends and relatives in that state, and they are so sick of their clowns representing them, they are ready to toss them all out and start over, maybe even with worse clowns.

Like I said before, it's not the courts you should be annoyed with, it's the legislature.

How about this, I think their whole legal system has their heads up their asses in this case and I find it very alarming.