The parents’ rights to have a full control over their kids’ upbringing is a well, known docket in the court of law and is protected by the substantive due process doctrine. However, the Supreme Court in the United States of America has never clarified this right and makes it clear and known to the public ( Alexander & Alexander, 2011). This has not gone without notice since this right has been jeopardized and it has proven to be troublesome especially in the circumstances for instance in public school where the parents feels that they have the mandate to control what their children does in school inclusive of their dressing code and many others. It has also been noted that it is often challenging to attain the public education curriculum objective in situations where the parents have dominance power over the school activities. When faced with his issue, many court cases have mentioned or used the Mayer-piece in order to have the competing parental and school interest solved. This paper majors on the Fields v. Palmdale School District case in USA.
Who Were the Parties Involved?
This was a very interesting and very critical case where the issue of parental and children privacy was being brought forwards. The case involves the parents who were fighting for their children’s right whom according to their view, were jeopardized by the school board. The parents were the plaintiff and they brought the case before the court to sue the Palmdale school board in the district court of California. The main claim of the plaintiff was that through one of the teacher by the name Seymour, the school board violated their right to privacy, which is granted to them by the Federal constitutional law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What Issues Brought This Case to Court?
This case commenced when a volunteer mental health councilor by the name Kristi Seymour at the Mesquite Elementary School, who was also a master’s holder in the field of psychology came up with a survey and by the use of the third, fifth and firsts grade student administered the survey ( Green et al., 2014). The main goal of the survey was to establish the baseline measures which community has put in place to control children exposure to the trauma. Ten out of some of the survey questions which the children were to answer were based on sexual topics. As ethics demands in the field of research, Seymour sent consent letters to the parents of each and every child who was to be involved in this survey prior to the administration of the survey. The content of the letter was the explanation on the objectives of the survey, and a consent form. The letter to the parents did mention the main objective of the survey which was to measure the parental establishment strategies for the early exposure the children to trauma. This according the letter could make the students uncomfortable based on some of the questions which may irritate them. However, it did not mention sexual content. After approval from the school board, the survey was conducted.
What Were The Main Points Of Disagreement? The conflict came to be when after the school board approved the survey, it was administered, the parents came to realization that some of the survey questions were based on the topic of sex, yet they were not informed. They alleged that had they been told about some of the questions which were based on sex topics before consent, their children would not have participated in the survey. They therefore took the case to the court.
When and how was the case adjudicated? This case was adjudicated on the 9 th of the October in the year 2005.While adjudicating this case, the court had in mind and acknowledges the Meyer-piece. According to the court the Meyer piece “stated that the liberty interest asserted by plaintiffs—of controlling the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” was not clear or did not exist. The court also based their arguments and pointed out the difference between the Meyer piece perspective on this issue and those in the first circuit of the Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Productions. Based on the two documents the court highlighted that Meyer piece only “‘evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program’ . . . . They do not, however, give parents a fundamental right to control
Public school districts
Curriculum” On the other hand, Brown case also stated that parents “have no constitutional right . . . to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.” (Fershee, 2014).
Final decision : The plaintiff case was rejected and declared null and void. The court found out that based on the Meyer-piece and that of brown, the parents were on the wrong side. Both documents argue that parents have right on children’s upbringing, however, they are not allowed to interfere with the rights of schools to give children what they think is right for them.
Opinion: In my opinion, the court ruling was very clear and none biased. Parents have the right they possess to control their children since they were the one responsible for their upbringing at home. That right should not be substantially extended in the school activity since it will bring about hindrance in the curriculum.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fields v. Palmdale School District case in USA has brought about the issue of privacy and parents’ rights over the children and the level at which they can control their children in schools. The ruling which was based on two documents that is Meyer-Piece and the Brown perspective, the court found out that parents have right over their children; however, they are not given mandate to extend a significant right over their children when they are in school in a way which can jeopardize the schools’ functions.
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2011). American public school law . Cengage Learning.
Fershee, K. H. (2014). The Parent Trap: The Unconstitutional Practice of Severing Parental Rights Without Due Process of Law.
Green, P. C., Brown, D., & Ney, S. (2014). An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Arizona's Ethnic Studies Law.
