Do Minors Have Constitutional Rights?

[Moral Orel]

Also, should they? If parents can overrule all of their rights, can we really point to The Constitution to say that no one else can? It would seem as though they don't really have those rights to begin with in my opinion.

Some examples to ponder over.

If a teacher tells a student he isn't allowed to read his Bible in school, then that is a violation of his freedom of religion. But does a minor really have that right if his parents can overrule it? Isn't it really more of a case that his rights are granted where we please, and they can legally be taken when we please because his rights aren't guaranteed by The Constitution?

What if a girl, being raised by Muslim parents, wants to go to a Christian church? Does she have any legal recourse if her parents refuse to allow her to go? Should she?

What if a boy, being raised by Christian parents, doesn't want to go to church at all? Does he have any legal recourse if his parents force him to go? Should he?

If it is perfectly fine to allow parents to violate a minor's right to freedom of religion, is there really a Constitutional argument that says a school can't? Or is this simply a matter of us deciding which rights to grant where and by who, and minors aren't guaranteed the same rights as adults?

 

[Hank77]

Also, should they? If parents can overrule all of their rights, can we really point to The Constitution to say that no one else can? It would seem as though they don't really have those rights to begin with in my opinion.

Until a child is 18 yrs. old parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children. If that child does something that they shouldn't their parents can be sued for the actions their child has taken. They are responsible for paying any monetary debts for tickets, fines, and court fees.
So no they do not have the same rights that their parent does unless they are legally emancipated from their parents.

 

[hislegacy]

Until a child is 18 yrs. old parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children. If that child does something that they shouldn't their parents can be sued for the actions their child has taken. They are responsible for paying any monetary debts for tickets, fines, and court fees.
So no they do not have the same rights that their parent does unless they are legally emancipated from their parents.

Exactly: the parents are the legal guardians of the minor child. They are their protectors. The school system is not.

 

[Occams Barber]

Until a child is 18 yrs. old parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children. If that child does something that they shouldn't their parents can be sued for the actions their child has taken. They are responsible for paying any monetary debts for tickets, fines, and court fees.
So no they do not have the same rights that their parent does unless they are legally emancipated from their parents.

This is interesting.

If the child does not have the same rights as their parent wouldn't it follow that a school (or anyone else) could, quite legally, deny a child the right of free speech, assembly, religious practice etc.?
OB

 

[hislegacy]

This is interesting.

If the child does not have the same rights as their parent wouldn't it follow that a school (or anyone else) could, quite legally, deny a child the right of free speech, assembly, religious practice etc.?
OB

Only if the Parent or legal guardian does not stand up for them.

 

[Occams Barber]

Only if the Parent or legal guardian does not stand up for them.

I'm sure this has been resolved already by some court but, on the face of it, if the child has no rights how can the parent demand the rights that the child doesn't have?
OB

 

[Moral Orel]

Until a child is 18 yrs. old parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children. If that child does something that they shouldn't their parents can be sued for the actions their child has taken. They are responsible for paying any monetary debts for tickets, fines, and court fees.
So no they do not have the same rights that their parent does unless they are legally emancipated from their parents.

Okay, but since they don't have those rights as guaranteed by The Constitution, what is the legal basis for demanding those rights not be stepped on by other entities?

Also, I'm curious about the "should they?" part of my questions. Certainly, a parent who is responsible for his child's actions would have times that he needs to restrict the child's speech, for instance, but what about religion? Should we have a blanket law that minors have no rights, or should we have a nuanced "this or that could cause liability for the parent, but such and such could not"? Like my examples of children choosing if and where to go to church. What possible scenario could allowing their child the freedom to choose such a thing put the parent at risk for being liable?

 

[hislegacy]

Exactly: the parents are the legal guardians of the minor child. They are their protectors. The school system is not.

I'm sure this has been resolved already by some court but, on the face of it, if the child has no rights how can the parent demand the rights that the child doesn't have?
OB

 

[Moral Orel]

Exactly: the parents are the legal guardians of the minor child. They are their protectors. The school system is not.

When students are at school, the school very much is the guardian of the minor children and their protector. Schools are liable if any harm comes to a child while in their care.

 

[hislegacy]

When students are at school, the school very much is the guardian of the minor children and their protector. Schools are liable if any harm comes to a child while in their care.

No, not at all. Schools do not take the place of the parent re guardians.

If they did, they would not need permissions slips, nor would they be required by law to report to the parents.

Schools are institutions, if a parent does not want their children participating the school can do nothing about it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, not at all. Schools do not take the place of the parent re guardians.

If they did, they would not need permissions slips, nor would they be required by law to report to the parents.

Schools are institutions, if a parent does not want their children participating the school can do nothing about it.

I didn't really say the school "takes the place" of the parent, it's more like "as well as". If a child breaks his leg at school, the school is liable. Therefore the school has to protect the children.

 

[hislegacy]

I didn't really say the school "takes the place" of the parent, it's more like "as well as". If a child breaks his leg at school, the school is liable. Therefore the school has to protect the children.

Just like your work - if you break your leg at work, they are liable.

You are confusing liability with guardianship

 

[hislegacy]

Parents/guardians are responsible for not only the actions of the minor, but their care and training. They hold a unique position of authority that cannot be easily taken away. We entrust our children to schools and organizations, but remain the parent/guardian and speak for the minor.

Before 18, the minor cannot legally speak for themselves legally. They cannot enter contracts, they can not be sued, they cannot vote, they cannot get a drivers licence without parental approval. They cannot get married without parental approval.

Parents/Guardians are responsible for every aspect of their lives as they grow into adult hood. What they wear, what they eat, their medical needs and yes, even their religious up bringing. If a child breaks his/her parents rules, the parents can punish them. A child cannot take legal action against a parent for taking away a computer or games system. A parent/guardian can spank a child as punishment and as long as there is no bruising or damage, they child cannot claim assault.

If a parent/guardian thinks it is in the best interest of a child to not participate in a certain class or event at school, they have the final say if the child goes or doesn't attend. Likewise if a parent/guardian doesn't want their child to be in the company of another person, albeit adult or child, the parents have the authority to keep them from those individuals.

If a parent/guardian thinks it is the best interest of the child to receive religious instruction or attend religious services, they have the final say whether the child goes or doesn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

Parents/guardians are responsible for not only the actions of the minor, but their care and training. They hold a unique position of authority that cannot be easily taken away. We entrust our children to schools and organizations, but remain the parent/guardian and speak for the minor.

Before 18, the minor cannot legally speak for themselves legally. They cannot enter contracts, they can not be sued, they cannot vote, they cannot get a drivers licence without parental approval. They cannot get married without parental approval.

Parents/Guardians are responsible for every aspect of their lives as they grow into adult hood. What they wear, what they eat, their medical needs and yes, even their religious up bringing. If a child breaks his/her parents rules, the parents can punish them. A child cannot take legal action against a parent for taking away a computer or games system. A parent/guardian can spank a child as punishment and as long as there is no bruising or damage, they child cannot claim assault.

If a parent/guardian thinks it is in the best interest of a child to not participate in a certain class or event at school, they have the final say if the child goes or doesn't attend. Likewise if a parent/guardian doesn't want their child to be in the company of another person, albeit adult or child, the parents have the authority to keep them from those individuals.

If a parent/guardian thinks it is the best interest of the child to receive religious instruction or attend religious services, they have the final say whether the child goes or doesn't.

That's absolutely true. What I'm getting at, is that if we were to pass a law forbidding minors from praying in school, we don't need to amend The Constitution to do so. We already restrict their speech in school. Minors don't have those Constitutional rights, and the only rights they have are given to them separately from the Constitution.

I'm not saying we should ban prayer in schools, by the way, I'm just exploring what it means for minors to not really have rights guaranteed to them by The Constitution.

 

[Hank77]

This is interesting.

If the child does not have the same rights as their parent wouldn't it follow that a school (or anyone else) could, quite legally, deny a child the right of free speech, assembly, religious practice etc.?
OB

A school is not a child's legal guardian. The parents pay the school to educate their child.

 

[Hank77]

Okay, but since they don't have those rights as guaranteed by The Constitution, what is the legal basis for demanding those rights not be stepped on by other entities?

The parents are the ones who must protect the child's rights. I had to do this three times, once for each of three of my four children.

Also, I'm curious about the "should they?" part of my questions. Certainly, a parent who is responsible for his child's actions would have times that he needs to restrict the child's speech, for instance, but what about religion? Should we have a blanket law that minors have no rights, or should we have a nuanced "this or that could cause liability for the parent, but such and such could not"? Like my examples of children choosing if and where to go to church. What possible scenario could allowing their child the freedom to choose such a thing put the parent at risk for being liable?

No I don't think there should be laws that don't allow the parents to make decisions for their child's life. Except of coarse if what the parent is doing is actually harmful to the child's physical or mental health.
I know that is really hard when it comes to religion. As Christians we want all child to get the chance to hear the Gospel but we have to trust God that they will or that they will later in life. I grew up in a secular household but when I went to school almost all my friends were from Christian families, so I did pick up things here and there from them, mostly because I was curious and asked questions.

 

[Moral Orel]

A school is not a child's legal guardian. The parents pay the school to educate their child.

In order to educate your children, though, order and discipline needs to be maintained. In that regard, your child's rights are limited, by the school, such as freedom of speech. Kids aren't allowed to talk to their teachers any way they please, for instance. Even something as minor as calling your teacher "Joe" instead of "Mr. Smith" can be met with disciplinary action.

The parents are the ones who must protect the child's rights. I had to do this three times, once for each of three of my four children.

What I'm getting at, though, is that those rights aren't guaranteed by The Constitution because those rights are already circumvented by parents. If they can be circumvented by one group without a Constitutional amendment, then it seems the Constitution never applied to them to begin with. Schools don't have the right to punish kids for praying schools because we have laws against that (I believe) but those laws could change without needing to check in with the Supreme Court.

No I don't think there should be laws that don't allow the parents to make decisions for their child's life. Except of coarse if what the parent is doing is actually harmful to the child's physical or mental health.
I know that is really hard when it comes to religion. As Christians we want all child to get the chance to hear the Gospel but we have to trust God that they will or that they will later in life. I grew up in a secular household but when I went to school almost all my friends were from Christian families, so I did pick up things here and there from them, mostly because I was curious and asked questions.

I agree, mostly just out of practicality. If kids could sue their parents over limiting their Constitutional rights, it would be a mess.

But it does seem a bit hypocritical for a parent to attack a school if it tells their kid that they can't pray, but then force their kid to go to church if the kid doesn't want to go. Does the kid have freedom of religion or not? It feels more like parents defending their rights to force their religion on their kids, and less so about defending kids' rights to practice their religion how they see fit.

 

[hislegacy]

But it does seem a bit hypocritical for a parent to attack a school if it tells their kid that they can't pray, but then force their kid to go to church if the kid doesn't want to go. Does the kid have freedom of religion or not? It feels more like parents defending their rights to force their religion on their kids, and less so about defending kids' rights to practice their religion how they see fit.

Why do you keep repeating this over and over?

What are you looking for?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why do you keep repeating this over and over?

What are you looking for?

Am I wrong? If someone says, "My kid has a right to exercise his religion any way I see fit", is that protecting the kid's rights or the parent's rights?

I'm looking for a discussion on something I see as a double standard. I'm certainly not advocating government intervention or anything of that sort.

 

[hislegacy]

Am I wrong? If someone says, "My kid has a right to exercise his religion any way I see fit", is that protecting the kid's rights or the parent's rights?

Yes you are wrong - the child as stated a number of times does not have the ability to make those decisions for themselves. As stated a number of times, it is the parents that make those decisions for the minor.

It is protecting both of their rights, whether or not the child agrees.

Is there a prayer in school case that is bugging you?