What Rights as a Parent do I have?
YES, you do have rights concerning your child.
In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights,
liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions
holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among
"the basic civil rights of man."
Below are a few cases that we have found to explain parent rights.
The upbringing of children is a parental right the court
has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," and is sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the
State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.
Call us at 1-800-688-8706 to find a program for your teen or click here
M.L.B.v.S.L.J. - ___ US ___, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children
are among associational rights this Court has ranked as "of basic
importance in our society," rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment
against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.
This case, involving the State's authority to sever permanently a parent-child
bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when
a family association so undeniably important was at stake.
Santosky v Kramer - 455 US 745 (1982)
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody,
and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and
does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or
have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental
rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty
interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it
must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
Lassiter v Department of Social Services - 452 US 18 (1981)
The Court's decisions have by now made plain that a parent's desire
for and right to "the companionship, care, custody, and management
of his or her children" is an important interest that "undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection."
A parent's interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate
his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.
Quilloin v Walcott - 434 US 246 (1978)
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended
"if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family,
over the objections of the parents and their children, without some
showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought
to be in the children's best interest." Whatever might be required
in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this
situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of
legitimation, were in the "best interests of the child."
Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families - 431 US 816 (1977)
In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization,
sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and
New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory
procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as
balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive
discussion of foster care conditions.
Moore v East Cleveland - 431 US 494 (1977)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters
of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing
their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters
have consistently acknowledged a "private realm of family life
which the state cannot enter." When the government intrudes on
choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine
carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.
Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters
of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right "to
be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally
affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Stanley v Illinois - 405 US 645 (1972)
The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired
and raised, undeniably warrants deference and protection. The integrity
of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of
the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment,
and the 9th Amendment.
Wisconsin v Yoder - 406 US 205 (1972)
In this case involving the rights of Amish parents to provide for private
schooling of their children, the Court held: "The history and culture
of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern
for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role
of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established
beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
Loving v Virginia - 388 US 1 (1967)
In this case involving interracial marriage, the Court reaffirmed the
principles set forth in Pierce and Meyers, finding that marriage is
one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence
end survival. "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom
of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person
of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed
by the State."
Griswold v Connecticut - 381 US 479 (1965)
The 4th and 5th Amendments were described as protection against all
governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the
privacies of life." The Court referred to the 4th Amendment as
creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other
right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." Reaffirming
the principles set forth in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyers
v Nebraska.
Prince v Massachusetts - 321 US 158 (1944)
It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child
reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include
preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.
And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected
the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
Skinner v Oklahoma - 316 US 535 (1942)
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
to the very existence and survival of the race."
Pierce v Society of Sisters - 268 US 510 (1925)
The liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education
of children was abridged by a proposed statute to compell public education.
"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in
this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize
its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers
only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture
him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty,
to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Meyer v Nebraska - 262 US 390 (1923)
"No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law." "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt,
it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right
of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and
bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized
at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men."
Call us at 1-800-688-8706 to find a program for your teen or click here
| 
