Opinion ID: 1100352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Which Standard Applies?

Text: The first issue in every case considering the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is which standard applies. Not only is the applicable standard the threshold determination in any constitutional analysis; it is often the most crucial. In this case, it has made all the difference. The district court originally reviewed these ordinances under a heightened scrutiny, and upheld them. See State v. T.M., 761 So.2d 1140, 1146, 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ( T.M.I ). On remand from this Court, it applied strict scrutiny, and invalidated them. See J.P. v. State, 832 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ( J.P.III ). Therefore, we should thoughtfully analyze the applicable standard. I recognize that when this Court last reviewed this issue in the prior iteration of this case, T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442 (Fla.2001) ( T.M.II ), the State conceded that strict scrutiny analysis applied because it argued that even under that standard the ordinances at issue were constitutional. Id. at 444; cf. Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F.3d 488, 492 (5th Cir.1993) (assuming, without deciding, that a juvenile curfew ordinance implicated a fundamental right because the ordinance was constitutional even under strict scrutiny analysis). We agreed with the State's concession and, in a single sentence, adopted it as our holding. See T.M. II, 784 So.2d at 444 (We agree and hold in answer to the first certified question that strict scrutiny applies when reviewing a juvenile curfew ordinance.). The majority now concludes that we held that strict scrutiny applied, and concludes that to hold otherwise now would require the Court to recede from its precedent of only three years ago. Majority op. at 1108. Our opinion in T.M. II contains no analysis of the issue whatsoever, and nothing in the opinion, other than the single cryptic phrase we agree [with the state's concession] and hold . . . even hints at analysis. To the extent this bald, unexplained holding can be considered precedent, when combined with the fact that the State conceded the issue, I do not believe it is worthy of deference. The standard for reviewing the constitutionality of an ordinance is too important to be based on a concession, followed by we agree and hold that . . . This is especially true in this case, which is the same case we reviewed then, and where the doctrine of the law of the case, not stare decisis, applies. The doctrine of the law of the case generally provides that all questions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which . . . must be followed in subsequent proceedings. Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla. 1984). Recognizing that correctness is sometimes more important than consistency, however, this Court has carved out an important exception to the doctrine. Under that exception, [t]his Court has the power to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings in exceptional circumstances and where reliance on the previous decision would result in manifest injustice, notwithstanding that such rulings have become the law of the case. State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715, 720 (Fla.1997) (citing Preston v. State, 444 So.2d 939 (Fla.1984)). This case presents an exceptional circumstance in which automatic reliance on our previous decision would result in manifest injustice. In T.M. II, we ordered the district court to apply strict scrutiny without so much as identifying the fundamental right upon which that mandate was based. We offered no analysis to support our holding. Cf. Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 108 (Fla.2001) ([W]here a previous appellate court has given no explanation for its decision, a subsequent appellate court is not bound by the law of the case unless a determination concerning the propriety of the trial court's order is necessarily inconsistent with every possible correct basis for the earlier rulings.). It would be manifestly unjust to perpetuate the erroneous application of strict scrutiny to this case purely on the basis of an unexplained, one-sentence holding. See Owen, 696 So.2d at 720 ([R]eliance upon our prior decision . . . would result in manifest injustice to the people of this state because it would perpetuate a rule which we have now determined to be an undue restriction of legitimate law enforcement activity.); Preston, 444 So.2d at 942 (The interest of justice [and] substantive due process requirements . . . support our decision to review this issue [notwithstanding the rule of the case].). Even if the doctrine of stare decisis applies, that doctrine does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to explain and justify its constitutional interpretations, especially when those interpretations address the scope of citizens' fundamental rights. Cf. State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 399 (Utah 1994) ([The] stare decisis effect of [the] case is substantially diminished by the fact that the legal point therein was decided without argument.) (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 193 (1965)). The fact that the majority conducts its own lengthy analysis of the appropriate standard of review only confirms my conclusion that our one-sentence analysis in T.M. II should not resolve  indeed, was never understood by this Court as resolving  this important issue for all future cases. Courts use three different standards for determining a law's constitutionality: rational basis review, intermediate (or heightened) scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. These three standards act like lenses of different strength, from simple eyeglasses, to a magnifying glass, to a microscope. At each level, the court more closely examines the government's purpose in enacting the law and the means used to attain it. The most common, and least intrusive, standard is the rational basis test. It is used when the law at issue does not involve a suspect classification (such as a racial one) or infringe on a fundamental right. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-20, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993). Under that test, a statute or ordinance must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 110 (Fla.2002). Where fundamental rights of minors are involved, courts sometimes invoke intermediate or heightened scrutiny. See Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843, 847 (4th Cir.1998). To withstand such heightened review, the ordinance must be substantially related to the achievement of important government interests. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Finally, when a statute or ordinance infringes on the fundamental rights of adults, the law must pass the most exacting standard of review, called strict scrutiny. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). For an ordinance to withstand strict scrutiny, it must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 216-17, 102 S.Ct. 2382. The majority concludes that strict scrutiny review applies because fundamental rights are implicated by the juvenile curfew ordinances. Majority op. at 1109. The majority acknowledges that the ordinances do not implicate the minors' freedom of speech and of assembly. Majority op. at 1111. Nevertheless, it holds that the ordinances implicate the rights to privacy and freedom of movement. Id. at 1115. I will address these in turn.
Regarding the minors' asserted right to privacy, the majority states that the cities' asserted compelling interest of preventing victimization of minors could outweigh the minors' privacy rights during the curfew hours, if the ordinances were narrowly tailored to achieve that goal as required by strict scrutiny. Majority op. at 1112. But the majority never answers whether the juvenile curfew ordinances implicate the minors' privacy rights in the first place. If they do not, then the ordinances need not be considered under a strict scrutiny analysis. I do not see how an ordinance prohibiting minors from remaining in public unsupervised during late night hours violates their right to privacy. In cases involving fundamental rights, the judicial analysis must begin with a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (quoting Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977)). Before the strict scrutiny standard is applied to right of privacy claims, the court must inquire into whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla.1985). This analysis inevitably requires an inquiry into the scope and dimensions of the fundamental right at issue and whether the case before us falls within its dimensions. Cf. Hutchins v. Dist. of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531, 537 (D.C.Cir.1999) (inquiring into the scope and dimension of parent's fundamental right and determining that the right was not implicated). In determining the scope of a fundamental right, we should remember the general principle that [b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258. With this principle in mind, the issue is not whether minors have a right to privacy. The real question is whether the scope of that right includes a right to remain in public unsupervised at any hour of day or night. Only if minors have a fundamental right to such activity may we then ask whether the State has an important (intermediate scrutiny) or compelling (strict scrutiny) interest in curtailing that right, and whether the law is substantially related (intermediate scrutiny) or narrowly tailored (strict scrutiny) toward that interest. The majority never answers this question. It simply assumes that any fundamental right to privacy that minors possess necessarily includes the right to remain unsupervised in public late at night. Because of the many factors that distinguish minors from adults, I do not believe that minors have such a right at all, and much less that any such right is so fundamental that it cannot be circumscribed. It is well settled that the government has a greater ability to regulate actions of children than those of adults. See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 168, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944). This difference in how the law treats minors is based on various factors that distinguish minors from adults, including the peculiar vulnerability of children and their inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature manner. See Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 635, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979) (noting that during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them) (plurality opinion); cf. Jones v. State, 640 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Fla.1994) (recognizing that the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual activity before their minds and bodies have sufficiently matured to make it appropriate, safe, and healthy for them). Thus, minors' rights of privacy do not vitiate the legislature's efforts and authority to protect them from the conduct of others or from their own inability to make wise decisions. Jones, 640 So.2d at 1087. The right to privacy also does not necessarily extend to public acts. In Stall v. State, 570 So.2d 257, 260 (Fla.1990), for example, we held that although the right to privacy protected the private enjoyment of obscene material in one's home, there was no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy in being able to publicly purchase such material. The Court noted the State's legitimate interest in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity. Id. at 260 (quoting Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 57, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973)). The Court also stated that we are a society of individuals who make a whole community,  id. at 261 (emphasis added), and that granting the unfettered ability to publicly obtain such material would affect the world about the rest of us, and . . . impinge on other privacies, id. at 261 (quoting Paris Adult Theatre I, 413 U.S. at 59, 93 S.Ct. 2628); see also Prince, 321 U.S. at 166, 168, 64 S.Ct. 438 (distinguishing between the private realm of family life and the evils . . . [of] public places). Stall rejected the petitioners' argument that a citizen's private right to possess and enjoy obscene material encompassed the public sale and distribution of such material. Id. Based on the same reasoning, we should reject the argument that the curfew ordinances somehow infringe on a minor's right to privacy. The ordinances do not in any way limit what minors may do in the privacy of their family homes. The majority, however, concludes that the Florida Constitution's privacy provision affords Florida citizens greater protection in the area of privacy than does the federal Constitution. Majority op. at 1115. That Florida's right of privacy may be more expansive than the federal right, however, does not make it all-encompassing. The right to privacy is not a wild card that, when played, suddenly renders any ordinance unconstitutional. We have recognized that article I, section 23 was not intended to provide an absolute guarantee against all governmental intrusion into the private life of an individual. Winfield, 477 So.2d at 547 (quoting Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re Applicant, 443 So.2d 71, 74 (Fla.1983)). As we have noted: Practically any law interferes in some manner with someone's right of privacy. The difficulty lies in deciding the proper balance between this right and the legitimate interest of the state. As the representative of the people, the legislature is charged with the responsibility of deciding where to draw the line. Only when that decision clearly transgresses private rights should the courts interfere. Stall, 570 So.2d at 261 (quoting In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1204 (Fla.1989) (Grimes, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). The majority essentially holds that minors have a fundamental right to roam in public unsupervised during any time of the day or night. This would protect a minor's right to be on the street in the middle of the night, regardless of the costs to the community in the form of higher crime rates, law enforcement costs and other negative consequences. Neither the record in this case nor common sense suggests that the purported independence of juveniles to be out in the public during the late night and early morning hours constitutes such a fundamental right. As one court has emphasized, [f]orbidding preventive measures such as curfews propels localities to the harshest of alternatives  waiting for juveniles actually to commit criminal offenses and then apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing them. Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 855. Neither the State nor its citizens  whether children or adults  benefit from relegating the State to such a strictly remedial role.
The majority also holds that the ordinances implicate the minors' constitutional right of freedom of movement. Majority op. at 1112. I do not find any such right in either the Constitution or the cases interpreting it. It is true that the right to interstate travel is firmly embedded in the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999); see also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). This right has been characterized as emanating both from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Saenz, 526 U.S. at 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518 (grounding at least one component of the right on that clause), and on the Commerce Clause, see Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 173-74, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941). The cases in which the Supreme Court has explained the right, however, all concerned interstate or international travel. As the majority acknowledges, the Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution grants a fundamental right to a generalized freedom of movement. See Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 535-39. [10] In fact, in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974), the Supreme Court specifically declined to decide the issue. Much less has the Court held, or even implied, that such a right would extend to minors. Apparently recognizing this fact, the majority attempts to find such a right in our decision in Wyche v. State, 619 So.2d 231, 235 (Fla.1993). The majority quotes the following memorable passage from Wyche: Hailing a cab or a friend, chatting on a public street, and simply strolling aimlessly are time-honored pastimes in our society and are clearly protected under Florida as well as federal law. All Florida citizens enjoy the inherent right to window shop, saunter down a sidewalk, and wave to friends and passersby with no fear of arrest. 619 So.2d at 235 (footnotes and citations omitted). The majority concludes from this passage that the right to intrastate travel in Florida is clear. Majority op. at 1113. The clarity of that proposition is, however, a function of its abstractness. Of course all Florida citizens have the inherent right to stroll and chat, to saunter and wave, in the absence of justified legislation to the contrary. But how strong is that right? Is it fundamental? Do minors have the same right as adults? Wyche does not answer these questions. If anything, Wyche indicates that the right to intrastate travel in Florida is not a fundamental right, but is instead subject to rational basis review. See Wyche, 619 So.2d at 237 ([I]t is impossible to say that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective and is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive.). Also, Wyche indicates that the right to intrastate travel is merely derivative of the two constitutional rights I have already discussed: the Florida right to privacy and the federal right to interstate travel. Id. at 235 n. 5. Because, as the majority admits, the United States Supreme Court has never definitively ruled that there is a fundamental right to intrastate travel, Majority op. at 1113, it seems safe to assume that Wyche's oblique reference to an inherent right that is clearly protected under Florida as well as federal law was not intended to announce a fundamental right to intrastate travel. Wyche itself did not involve travel at all  it concerned an ordinance that prohibited loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Id. at 233 n. 2. In sum, the inherent right described in Wyche falls in the same category as countless other rights that  while undeniably important  are not fundamental in the constitutional sense. See, e.g., San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35-36, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (concluding that childhood education, despite its undisputed importance, is not a fundamental right for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause); Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976) (holding that the right to work is not a fundamental right, even though the Court had said in Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915), that employment is the very essence of. . . personal freedom and opportunity); Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577, 584 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 1010, 47 L.Ed.2d 249 (1976) (holding that welfare support is not a fundamental right, even though the Court had said in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 n. 8, 264, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), that welfare payments are more like `property' than a `gratuity' and are the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care); Lite v. State, 617 So.2d 1058, 1060 n. 2 (Fla.1993) (holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right). At any rate, a fundamental right to intrastate travel does not follow inevitably from Wyche as a matter of logic. The majority should at least acknowledge what its decision truly represents: the declaration of a new fundamental right. Even if a fundamental right to travel or to movement exists, it does not necessarily extend to minors. Again, Wyche did not involve minors, so it had no occasion to determine whether the right involved there applied to them. The Supreme Court has rejected the idea that minors have a right to come and go at will because juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody. Reno, 507 U.S. at 302, 113 S.Ct. 1439 (quoting Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984)). Traditionally at common law . . . unemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self-determination  including even the right of liberty in its narrow sense, i.e., the right to come and go at will. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 654, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995). I would hold that this case does not implicate any fundamental right of minors to freedom of movement. See Bellotti, 443 U.S. at 634, 99 S.Ct. 3035 (articulating factors justifying treating minors and adults differently); Metropolitan Dade County v. Pred, 665 So.2d 252, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (noting that U.S. and Florida Constitutions do not give children same quantum or quality of rights as adults). Therefore, the correct standard for determining the constitutionality of the juvenile ordinances is the rational basis test.
The majority declines to rule on the minors' claims that the ordinances violate their parents' rights, Majority op. at 1113, but nevertheless spends more than five pages discussing the issue for the sake of completeness, Majority op. at 1113, at the end of which the majority conclude[s] that the ordinances may implicate the parental right to raise children, but leave[s] resolution of this issue for another day. Majority op. at 1115. Therefore, even though, as the majority admits, its discussion of this issue is utter dictum, I respond to it for the sake of the same completeness. Because the majority apparently agrees, Majority op. at 1115 n. 5, I will not belabor the point that the minors lack standing to raise their parents' rights. Major implications would follow from a holding that a minor has standing to assert the rights of the parent. In many cases, the parents' desires to raise their children the way they think best compete with their children's desires to run their lives the way they think best. Therefore, allowing a minor to assert the parent's rights encourages the manipulation of arguments to further the minor's purposes as against the parent's. As one court has recognized, if we accept the argument that parents' fundamental rights are implicated in this context, future litigants could simply artfully plead violations of parental rights to avoid the [well-established] determination that children do not possess all the freedoms of adults. Arguments based on minors' rights to engage in particular conduct would be routinely recast as arguments based on parents' rights to allow their children to engage in precisely the same conduct. Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 852. Even if the minors had standing to assert this claim, determining whether an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in any given case must be made by considering all the circumstances, especially objective manifestations of that expectation. Stall, 570 So.2d at 260 (quoting Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 153 (Fla.1989) (Ehrlich, J., concurring specially)) (emphasis added). Parents do not have an unlimited constitutional right to rear their children any way they see fit, regardless of the consequences to the community at large. Parents have responsibilities. The State already demands a certain threshold level of care under its child neglect statutes. See, e.g., § 39.001(3), Fla. Stat. (2002) (outlining general protections for children); § 39.01, Fla. Stat. (2002) (defining abuse and abandonment). Parents must ensure that their children are educated, see § 1003.21(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring regular school attendance during the entire school term for children between the ages of six and sixteen); § 1003.24, Fla. Stat. (2003) (providing that, subject to certain exceptions, each parent of a child within the compulsory attendance age is responsible for the child's school attendance as required by law); they cannot abuse or neglect their children, see § 39.806(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2003) (providing for termination of parental rights when parent abuses child); and they must give their children a certain level of financial support, see § 39.01(30)(f), Fla. Stat. (2003) (stating that the term neglects the child encompasses a parent's failure to supply the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or health care, although financially able to do so or although offered financial or other means to do so). An ordinance prohibiting minors from remaining in public unsupervised during late-night hours is simply another legitimate requirement that parents adequately supervise their children. Curfew ordinances inevitably assume a threshold level of parental responsibility. See Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 851 (noting that the city was entitled to believe that a nocturnal curfew would promote parental involvement in a child's upbringing despite evidence that some parents did not support the curfew); Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, 401 F.Supp. 1242, 1255 (M.D.Pa.1975) (noting that curfews encourage parents who ignore their children's nighttime activities to take a more active role in their children's lives), aff'd, 535 F.2d 1245 (3d Cir.1976). As the majority acknowledges, Majority op. at 1114, many courts have held that juvenile curfew ordinances either do not implicate parents' fundamental rights or interfere with them only minimally. See Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 540-41 (holding that the federal right of parental control only includes parents' control of the home and formal education of children and not parental decisions about when their children can be on public streets); Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 853 (concluding that a curfew ordinance did not fall within the type of intimate family decisions protected from state interference); Qutb, 11 F.3d at 495-96 (holding that a juvenile curfew ordinance constituted a minimal intrusion on parents' rights and only affected a parent's ability to allow the minor to remain in public places, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian); Hodgkins v. Peterson, 175 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1162 (S.D.Ind.2001) (concluding that parents have no fundamental right to allow their minor children to be in public places with parental permission during curfew hours and that statute did not infringe on minors' First Amendment rights), rev'd, 355 F.3d 1048, 1064-65 (7th Cir.2004) (holding that curfew statute violated minors' free expression rights but declining to reach the merits of parents' right to privacy claim); Bykofsky, 401 F.Supp. at 1264 (concluding that the ordinance constitutes a minimal interference with the parental interest in influencing and controlling the activities of their offspring, in light of numerous exceptions in the ordinance); City of Panora v. Simmons, 445 N.W.2d 363, 369-70 (Iowa 1989) (holding that a curfew was a minimal infringement on parents' rights). I do not contest that parents have a fundamental right in the upbringing of their children. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (stating that the primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition); Von Eiff v. Azicri, 720 So.2d 510, 513 (Fla.1998) (explaining that Florida's Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and that such right includes a parent's fundamental right to rear his or her child). The issue here, however, is the scope and dimension of the right. The Supreme Court has rejected the view that a parent's right to raise a child is unqualified, superseding all government regulation. See Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. 438 (stating that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 178, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976) (stating that parents have no constitutional right to provide their children with private school education unfettered by reasonable government regulation); Bykofsky, 401 F.Supp. at 1262 (stating that the State may act to promote its legitimate interests, despite parents' fundamental rights, when actions concerning the child have a relation to the public welfare); cf. Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange County, 125 So.2d 554, 558 (Fla.) (stating that First Amendment rights are not absolute and that courts must balance the private right against the alleged public interest), rev'd on other grounds, 368 U.S. 278, 82 S.Ct. 275, 7 L.Ed.2d 285 (1961); 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 397 (1998) (stating generally that fundamental constitutional rights of individuals are not absolute, limitless, or unrestricted rights). In the parental context, [n]ot every state restriction of a child's freedom derivatively abridges the fundamental rights of parents. Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 852. Parents' fundamental right to privacy does not encompass allowing their children to wander the public streets unsupervised during the late night hours, even with parental permission. The social burdens that accommodating such a decision would entail, and the risks to the health and safety of children, justify government regulation of that decision. See Yoder, 406 U.S. at 233-34, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (stating that parents' fundamental rights are subject to limitation. . . if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens ) (emphasis added); cf. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243 (1903) (holding that parent's right to practice religion did not include liberty to expose the community to communicable disease). As one court has said, insofar as a parent can be thought to have a fundamental right, as against the state, in the upbringing of his or her children, that right is focused on the parents' control of the home and the parents' interest in controlling, if he or she wishes, the formal education of children. It does not extend to a parent's right to unilaterally determine when and if children will be on the streets  certainly at night. That is not among the intimate family decisions encompassed by such a right. Hutchins, 188 F.3d at 540-41 (plurality opinion) (citing Schleifer, 159 F.3d at 853). This is true even in Florida.