Parents Can't Parent Anymore

[Hobbit]

First, it's spanking. Now this. When is the government just gonna step back and let parents raise their kids, or are we gonna force a Hillary-esque "village raising" technique where parents barely get to do anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/parental.snooping.ap/index.html

Court: Mom's eavesdropping violated privacy law

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state law prohibits parents from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations.

The case reached the high court because of a purse-snatching.

A 17-year-old boy was convicted of the robbery, in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mother, who overhead him discussing the crime on the phone with her daughter.

The daughter had taken a cordless phone into her bedroom and closed the door. In another room, her mother pressed the speakerphone button on an extension, listened in and took notes.

The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone.

Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.

"The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The boyfriend will get a new trial.

 

[Mr. P]

SEATTLE, Washington.

Well, need we say more?

 

[5stringJeff]

The rest of Washington State is not this weird, really. Seattle ruins it for the rest of us...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is just another attack upon parental rights. Once the State has wrested away the rights of parents to control their children, guess who gets to control the children? And by default, society at large?

Since when are parents to be denied their rights to monitor their children, whether it is listening in on the phone or going through their belongings at home or in their school lockers? Or any number of things in order to keep them on the straight and narrow until they reach the age of majority at 18.

I think it is time that we call the liberals by their real name: Communists.
One of the precepts of communism is to relace the role of the parent with the state.

ps: did I ever mention that Seattle has a prominent public statue of Lenin?

 

[nakedemperor]

ps: did I ever mention that Seattle has a prominent public statue of Lenin?

I am the walrus?

 

[Trigg]

Some of you may already know this, but for those of you who don't. It's against the law for parents to spank their children in Michigan and Oregon.

I don't mean beat the children, I'm talking a swat on the butt. Supposedly this spanking makes children violent.

Now I was spanked and it taught me that there are consiquences to my actions. Time out doesn't work with all chidren and sometimes they need a swat to get the point across to them that what they're doing won't be tolerated.

The gov. holds parents responsible for what they're children do until they turn 18. But, by presecuting parents for listening to phone calls and spanking they're showing the kids that they can do whatever they want and they won't get in trouble for it. What are parents to do??

 

[Merlin1047]

I don't have a problem with this ruling. The court did not rule that a parent could not monitor a child's conversation. The court ruled that information gathered in this matter could not be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The police and certainly the district attorney's office should have known better than to proceed to trial with information obtained by telephone monitoring without a warrant.

I think I'm probably as anti-activist court as anybody, but this ruling seems reasonable to me.

 

[Johnney]

one word: minors
since when do minors have right to privacy in thier parents house? you know what i was told when i wanted privacy at my house? if you want privacy, move on out, but as long as your here, you have none.

little spoiled bastards now days

whats next? we have to ask them what they want for dinner or its abuse?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

one word: minors
since when do minors have right to privacy in thier parents house? you know what i was told when i wanted privacy at my house? if you want privacy, move on out, but as long as your here, you have none.

little spoiled bastards now days

whats next? we have to ask them what they want for dinner or its abuse?

Hey Johnney! I can tell by your avatar that you were a poor beaten deprived child who didn't learn right from wrong when you grew up because you are beating the daylights out of Saddam who obviously represents the good example of a parent who allowed his children to break any law that they please.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't have a problem with this ruling. The court did not rule that a parent could not monitor a child's conversation. The court ruled that information gathered in this matter could not be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The police and certainly the district attorney's office should have known better than to proceed to trial with information obtained by telephone monitoring without a warrant.

I think I'm probably as anti-activist court as anybody, but this ruling seems reasonable to me.

I do have a problem with it. The court ruled that the information gotten by the parent by listening on the phone could not be used as evidence. That phone the child was using belonged to the parent. Anything said on that phone should be within the purvue of the parent. As anything their children do or say should be within the purvue of the parent.

This ruling is effectively telling the parent that they cannot use information about their children that they hear on the phone. If the parent heard that an old woman was knocked down and her purse was stolen is the parent just supposed to ignore what went down? Why can't the parent take this information to the police and make sure that the old lady was given back her money and that their child was punished? According to this law, the parent is not able to do this.

Instead, the government is protecting the child under phone laws that should be used only for adults. A child should not have the "expectation of privacy".

 

[Trinity]

Last time I checked I still paid the phone bill, so until they get a job and pay for their own phone, they are not entitled to privacy on the phone.

 

[Johnney]

Last time I checked I still paid the phone bill, so until they get a job and pay for their own phone, they are not entitled to privacy on the phone.

 

[acludem]

The issue here isn't the privacy of the child. The issue is whether or not what was said is legal to use in court against the boyfriend. Evidently, Washington law prohibits the use of this type of evidence in criminal proceedings. Personally, I think this was the correct decision. The judges followed the existing law. IF they had been activists, they'd have simply ignored existing law.

acludem

 

[Johnney]

so if it would have been a snitch on the streets it would be any more credible? cant see it

 

[Hobbit]

The issue here isn't the privacy of the child. The issue is whether or not what was said is legal to use in court against the boyfriend. Evidently, Washington law prohibits the use of this type of evidence in criminal proceedings. Personally, I think this was the correct decision. The judges followed the existing law. IF they had been activists, they'd have simply ignored existing law.

acludem

Participants in phone conversations can always testify to their contents, and if you hear a conversation on your own phone, you, as owner of the phone, are a de facto participant. It's not like the mom sat outside the house, tapping the line and recording every word. She simply picked up the line because she thought her child might be talking to her FELON boyfriend (which she was). Private investigators can do plenty less kosher things than that without it being thrown out, so why not this?

Oh, and by throwing out the evidence, the act of collecting that evidence is made illegal (you can be prosecuted if you're a cop and you search without a warrant, for example). It is illegal for parents to monitor a kid's phone conversation in WA now, plain and simple.

 

[Gem]

The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone.

Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.

This case was about privacy, read the article!!!

According to the article, the decision made states that a minor has a right to privacy, not having their phone conversations recorded without their consent. The fact that the conversation was used to prosecute one of the minors was just the vehicle by which the taping became known...they didn't strike down the conversation because it was being used in court, they did so because the minors have the right to agree (or disagree) to being recorded. Presumably the young felon would not have agreed to having his confession recorded, and therefore, in Seattle, his confession can not be used against him in court.

What fascinates me about this ruling is that while we are currently giving rights usually reserved for adults (18 and over) to children...we are also seeing increasing amounts of legislation that makes parents responsible for the behaviors and actions of their children. We have seen this in the past, with parents being charged fines for their child's unexcused absences from school, it always comes up after a school shooting, as people attempt to blame the parents for the actions of their child...etc.

It seems to me that we need to choose one way or the other. Either the parent is just that, the parent...and has the right AND legal responsibility to raise their children. OR The parent just created the child, and although s/he lives under the parents roof, eats the parents food, spends the parents money....the child is an autonomous being, with all of the rights of an adult, and the parent has no real responsibility other than respecting the rights of that child.

We can't tell mothers and fathers that they are legally not allowed to parent....then attempt to blame them or sue them for not parenting when something goes wrong....

 

[dmp]

The ruling didn't suggest Minors have a right to use the phone, did it?

Do any of you know what kids need? Beatings. The more I see kids today, the more I'm convinced the greatest disservice we are doing to our culture is by our in-action. We, as a society, don't beat our kids enough. I'd rather Homos be allowed to marry if it meant Public beatings of kids would take place. I'd draw a parallel to slavery. Not beating our kids hurts our nation worse than the whole slavery issue. Easily.

Parents, if you love your kids, beat them when they act up. If you aren't beating your kids, I'd wager you do NOT love them, in spite of what you'll likely reply with.

Parents 'don't' beat their kids not because it hurts the kids, Parents 'don't' beat their kids because beating their kids hurts THEM (the parent). It's rather selfish, as a parent, to deprive your kid of beatings simply because it makes you, the parent, uncomfortable.


(sigh).

Beat em. Often. Sometimes beat them for no reason, just so they are kept honest.


When you read the term 'beat' in this reply, know the term is used to discribe 'proper spanking for mis-behaviour' - NOT wanton smacking-around in a brutal, non-parental-motivated injuries, such as baseball bats, or causing severe physical harm. ...but if that's what it takes...it's better for a kid to enter adulthood with a limp than to enter adulthood with all their motorskills intact, but be an asshat. (see: Christine Gregoire).

 

[Merlin1047]

This case was about privacy, read the article!!!

According to the article, the decision made states that a minor has a right to privacy, not having their phone conversations recorded without their consent. The fact that the conversation was used to prosecute one of the minors was just the vehicle by which the taping became known...they didn't strike down the conversation because it was being used in court, they did so because the minors have the right to agree (or disagree) to being recorded.

I did read the article. But it is rather cursory and lacking in detail. Plus it's from CNN, so my bullshit antennae automatically come out.

I attempted to research the actual court ruling but came up empty. If you can find some details, I'd appreciate if you post a link. Who knows, it might force me to admit that you're right about this one.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't have a problem with this ruling. The court did not rule that a parent could not monitor a child's conversation. The court ruled that information gathered in this matter could not be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The police and certainly the district attorney's office should have known better than to proceed to trial with information obtained by telephone monitoring without a warrant.

I think I'm probably as anti-activist court as anybody, but this ruling seems reasonable to me.

Merlin, what should she have done? she was privy to information about a crime being committed? One which also involved her daughter to some degree If she didn't report it wouldn't that make her an accessory after the fact?

 

[Bonnie]

This case was about privacy, read the article!!!

According to the article, the decision made states that a minor has a right to privacy, not having their phone conversations recorded without their consent. The fact that the conversation was used to prosecute one of the minors was just the vehicle by which the taping became known...they didn't strike down the conversation because it was being used in court, they did so because the minors have the right to agree (or disagree) to being recorded. Presumably the young felon would not have agreed to having his confession recorded, and therefore, in Seattle, his confession can not be used against him in court.

What fascinates me about this ruling is that while we are currently giving rights usually reserved for adults (18 and over) to children...we are also seeing increasing amounts of legislation that makes parents responsible for the behaviors and actions of their children. We have seen this in the past, with parents being charged fines for their child's unexcused absences from school, it always comes up after a school shooting, as people attempt to blame the parents for the actions of their child...etc.

It seems to me that we need to choose one way or the other. Either the parent is just that, the parent...and has the right AND legal responsibility to raise their children. OR The parent just created the child, and although s/he lives under the parents roof, eats the parents food, spends the parents money....the child is an autonomous being, with all of the rights of an adult, and the parent has no real responsibility other than respecting the rights of that child.

We can't tell mothers and fathers that they are legally not allowed to parent....then attempt to blame them or sue them for not parenting when something goes wrong....

On top of which the mom owned the phone lines which makes it Private property. If she had tapped the boyfriends phone line yes it would have been illegal. What next illegal searches of kids bedrooms when drugs are found???