<p>The Washington Supreme Court ruled last week that the mother violated the kid’s privacy by eavesdropping on her daughter’s conversation. </p>
<p>“I don’t think the state should be … encouraging parents … to eavesdrop on their children,” said Douglas Klunder, an ACLU attorney. He suggested that Carmen Dixon could have controlled her teenager better “by restricting the use of the phone.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.freep.com/sports/al[/url]”>http://www.freep.com/sports/al</a> bom/mitch12e_20041212.htm</p>
<p>I agree with the Court’s ruling. While I agree that parents have the right to parent their children, I believe minors have rights as well.</p>
<p>What, are you out of you mind averagemathgeek? If and when you become a parent, I unconditionally guarantee that you’ll think that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever said. What’s next, a parent can’t take away a kid’s toy because it’s deprivation of property without due process? Or how 'bout not being able to tell a kid to do the dishes because it’s involuntary servitude and unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment? Maybe parents should be required to get a warrant before they go into their child’s room?</p>
<p>First off, I think you are assuming too much from my post. I believe that parents have all of the power they need. They control the “means.” In my opinion, that alone is enough to give parents the ability to parent.</p>
<p>In the case of Carmen Dixon, doesn’t she have a circuit breaker? Why not cut off power to the child’s room? Furthermore, I would support Dixon’s listening to phone conversations if she had informed her child that this would happen. Dixon, as the person who pays the phone bill, has a right to distribute these services under any conditions she likes, as long as the other party is aware of them.</p>
<p>First, there’s tons of precedent that says that minors have no reasonable expectation of privacy from their parents, who have the more higher intertest of raising that child. Part of that includes trying to make sure your daughter isn’t hanging out with some ******* who assaulted an old lady and stole her purse. And if you can also help get him for that robbery, all the better. There’s no reason why Carmen Dixon should have to turn off the power. Also, telephones don’t need power, so it’s very likely that it wouldn’t have had any affect. Finally, cutting off one means of contact doesn’t address the central issue, which is that your daughter is hanging out with a truly bad person. You also have no response to all those other instances where parental conduct could be said to violate the Constitutional rights of their children. Any reason why the others shouldn’t apply goes out the window with this decision.</p>
<p>maybe part of raising a child also shouldnt be harassing anonymous ones on a college website.</p>
<p>I will address your issues:</p>
<p>“deprivation of property without due process” - You say “kid” which to me is ambiguous. Age is an important factor. Taking something away from a 15 year old should be illegal, whereas from a 4 year old is fine. The difference is in level of ownership.</p>
<p>“involuntary servitude” - Can you really force a person to do anything? Can a parent physically make a 15 year old do something against his/her will?</p>
<p>“warrant before they can legally [sic] go into their child’s room” - Once again, this goes back to ownership. A parent owns that room; thus, a parent can enter that room. Can the parents go through property in that room? No, because that is not theirs. Obvious exceptions are allowed for safety reasons; however, the legitimacy of these exceptions are open to review in every case.</p>