Opinion ID: 2488316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The fundamental right of parents in American jurisprudence.

Text: The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children was first addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). The Supreme Court concluded in Meyer that the right of the parents to have their children taught languages other than English was within the liberty of the [Fourteenth] amendment. 262 U.S. at 400, 43 S.Ct. 625. By enacting a law prohibiting the teaching of languages other than English to children before they graduated from the eighth grade, the Nebraska Legislature ha[d] attempted materially to interfere ... with the power of parents to control the education of their own. 262 U.S. at 401, 43 S.Ct. 625. Because [n]o emergency ha[d] arisen which render[ed] knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed, the Supreme Court was constrained to conclude that the statute as applied [was] arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state. 262 U.S. at 403, 43 S.Ct. 625. Parental rights also formed the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), which addressed an education statute that limited a child's schooling to public schools, thereby making it impossible for parents to choose to place their children in private schools like the school run by the Society of Sisters. Citing Meyer, the Supreme Court concluded that it [was] entirely plain that the [law] unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control, 268 U.S. at 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571, and was therefore unconstitutional. The rights of parents were reaffirmed in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (noting that parental rights undeniably warrant[] deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection), and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (upholding [t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child). Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), although primarily decided on First Amendment religious-freedom grounds, also made reference to parental rights. Because of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, Wisconsin's compulsory-education statute could not constitutionally punish Amish parents who, in keeping with their religious beliefs, did not send their children to high school. 406 U.S. at 235, 92 S.Ct. 1526. The Supreme Court also noted the overlap of the parents' religious freedom and their parental rights: [T]his case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children. The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. 406 U.S. at 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526. Even before Meyer and Pierce, this Court had recognized the rights of parents. In Montgomery v. Hughes, 4 Ala. App. 245, 247, 58 So. 113, 113-14 (1911), this Court wrote that [t]he laws of nature teach us that the relation of parent and child is sacred and that the parent is entitled to the care and custody of his child, unless some good cause is shown why he should not have such care and custody. [12] Four decades later, this Court cited approvingly a decision of the California Supreme Court, which in turn quoted Pierce and several other cases affirming parental rights: `This is in line with the principle that The essence of custody is the companionship of the child and the right to make decisions regarding his care and control, education, health, and religion, Lerner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 676, 681, 242 P.2d 321, 323 [ (1952) ], and It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 [(1925) ], supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter, Prince v. [Com. of] Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 [(1944)]....' Griggs v. Barnes, 262 Ala. 357, 363, 78 So.2d 910, 916 (1955) (quoting In re Guardianship of Smith (Howes v. Cohen), 255 P.2d 761, 762 (Cal.1953)). See also R.J.D. v. Vaughan Clinic, P.C., 572 So.2d 1225, 1227-28 (Ala.1990) (The common law deems parental care for children not only an obligation, but a fundamental right: `.... The will of the parents is controlling, except in those extreme instances where the state takes over to rescue the child from parental neglect or to save its life.' (quoting 59 Am.Jur.2d Parent and Child § 48 at 194 (1987))). As this Court said in Ex parte Sullivan, 407 So.2d 559, 563-64 (1981): The law recognizes that a higher authority ordains natural parenthood, and a fallible judge should disturb the relationship thus established only where circumstances compel human intervention. State action that limits a fundamental right is generally subject to strict scrutiny. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 80, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 100 L.Ed.2d 465 (1988) ([C]lassifications affecting fundamental rights ... are given the most exacting scrutiny.). Strict scrutiny generally requires that the state show a compelling interest, advanced by the least restrictive means. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 375, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (It is enough to say that the classification involved in Shapiro [v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969),] was subjected to strict scrutiny under the compelling state interest test ... because it impinged upon the fundamental right of interstate movement.). The courts of this State have not always respected this fundamental right. A statist philosophy that appeared briefly and sporadically in American jurisprudence in the early 20th century during the growth, worldwide, of national socialism represented an aberration from our founding principles and was quickly rejected. See Burns v. Shapley, 16 Ala.App. 297, 77 So. 447 (1917): The theory upon which the court proceeds in such cases is that the custody and control of the parent over his minor children is a trust committed to him by the state, and this trust is dominated by the supreme guardianship of the state as parens patriae of all infants within its border, and when the parent abuses the trust so as to endanger the welfare of the child, in such sort as to hamper or retard its development into a good citizen, the interest of society requires the state to assert its supreme guardianship and protect its ward. It has been said: `Minors are the wards of the nation, and even the control by the parent is subject to the unlimited supervisory control of the state' and that `the supreme right of the state to the guardianship of children controls the natural rights of the parent when the welfare of society or of the children themselves conflicts with parental rights.' 16 Ala.App. at 299, 77 So. at 449 (citations omitted). The philosophy expressed by the Court of Appeals in Burns directly undermined the relationship between parents and children; under that philosophy, rather than being ordained by a higher authority, Sullivan, supra, that relationship existed only as a creation of the state. That view was rejected by this Court in Griggs, supra, and by the United States Supreme Court in Meyer and Pierce, supra, decided in the decade following Burns.