Child's rights?

I'm wondering what the law says about a child's right to privacy. Can parents legally monitor a child's email without consent? Is there anything a child can do? At what age does the monitoring become illegal?

I may be wrong, and someone correct me if I am, but I feel that if a child is under the age of 18 and living under my roof, it is my business to know what they are doing on a computer, especially if I suspect illegal activity. Parents are legally responsible for their children as long as they are minors. That's the way I see it.

[MySonsMom]

Here Here! I wholeheartedly agree. I'm curious to here what the "laws" actually are..but in my home my law is always..."Anything my child does is MY business...ALWAYS". Even though there are things that I CHOOSE to ignore (which I relate it to as personal or privacy) but it is still MY business.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyris:
[b]I'm wondering what the law says about a child's right to privacy. Can parents legally monitor a child's email without consent? Is there anything a child can do? At what age does the monitoring become illegal?[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

For purposes of the following, I will not get into a lengthy, or additional, discussion of Constitutional issues, nor the emotional impact of our writer's question. Our writer will do what the writer is going to do, despite what any "law" might say - - reasoning, undoubtedly that "It's my child, my home, and I have a "right" to know what's going on in my home, regardless of what the Constitution might say."

I, therefore, will not entertain a further discussion on this matter or to discuss the "right and wrong" of such eavesdropping.

Final note: Although the writer talks about e-mail, please remember that an e-mail program on a computer is connected to a telephone line, and thus, there is nothing to distinguish a "writing" (as in e-mail), versus an oral conversation. It is all conversation and communication, nonetheless, no matter the actual form.

Intercepting child's conversations? Whether the federal wiretapping statutes prohibit a parent's eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations within the family home is unsettled.

Some cases conclude (on various theories) that such conduct does not violate the Federal Act. [See Campbell v. Price (ED AR 1998) 2 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1191--no liability where custodial parent has good faith belief that surreptitious recording of child's conversation with noncustodial parent on extension phone advanced child's best interests (consent exception); Newcomb v. Ingle (10th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1534, 1536]

But other courts decline to infer any such exemption under the Federal Act. [See Thompson v. Dulaney (10th Cir. 1992) 970 F.2d 744, 748--mother's surreptitious taping of children's phone conversation with estranged husband violated Federal Act; Williams v. Williams (1998) 229 Mich.App. 318, 581 NW2d 777, 780-781--no exception under federal law that would permit custodial father to consent on child's behalf to taping of child's phone conversations with ex-wife]

A violation of the federal or state wiretapping statutes triggers a suppression sanction--the unlawfully intercepted communication, and any evidence derived therefrom, cannot be received in evidence (18 USCA Sec.2515). [See People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088, 1098, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, 602--federal wiretap exclusionary rule applies in state court as well as federal court proceedings; and Bunnell v. Super.Ct. (People) (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1811, 1817-1818, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 819, 823-824]

State law expressly makes this exclusionary rule applicable in marital proceedings. [See Ca Fam Sec.2022(a)--"(e)vidence collected by eavesdropping in violation of (Ca Penal Sec.630 et seq.) is inadmissible"; see also Ca Fam Sec.2022(b)--court may refer apparent violation of Privacy Act "to the proper authority for investigation and prosecution"]

In summary, an older, more savvy child could, theoretically, report a parent to law enforcement authorities, or even sue a parent, for privacy infringement under the Federal and State wiretapping laws.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

I am actually a college student looking for information. I was trying to find precedents in our courts, but a "lengthy constitutional discussion" may also prove invaluble. Thanks all for your input.