Opinion ID: 2488316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The fundamental right of parents existed before and independently of civil government.

Text: As our Declaration of Independence made clear, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Those unalienable rights are not limited to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; they include all those rights that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937), and are therefore protected by the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has said: We agree that parents possess a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from unnecessary governmental intrusion in the rearing of their children. Curtis v. School Comm. of Falmouth, 420 Mass. 749, 755, 652 N.E.2d 580, 585 (1995). The Alabama Constitution provides similar protections. See Ala. Const.1901, § 1 (That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.), and § 36 (That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.). The authority of parents to direct the upbringing and training of their children is a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v. Commonwealth of Mass., 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (cited in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2302, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)). Those traditions, including the common law inherited from Britain and early American law derived from it, were rooted in Christian doctrine. Blackstone wrote that [C]hristianity is part of the laws of England. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries  (1726). As Justice Story said: One of the most beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is a part of the common law, from which it seeks sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavors to regulate its doctrines. And, notwithstanding the specious objection of one of our distinguished statesmen, the boast is true as it is beautiful. There never has been a period in which the common law did not recognise Christianity as lying at its foundations. Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author, as Dane Professor of Law, 20-21 (1829). Thomas Cooley, citing Justice Story, stated that Christianity is a part of the common law of the State ... in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted .... Thomas Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, 670 (1903)(emphasis in original) (quoted in Hudgins v. State, 22 Ala.App. 403, 404, 116 So. 306, 307 (1928)). This Court has also recognized the influence of Christianity, noting that [C]hristianity is a part of the common law, Goodrich v. Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670, 673 (1870), and that Christianity... is justly regarded, in a certain sense, as a part of the common law of the land. Goree v. State, 71 Ala. 7, 9 (1881). The Christian doctrine emphasized the role of parents in directing their children's growth and development. From the birth of the first child, children were recognized as being a gift to parents from God (Gen. 4:1, 25; see also Psalm 127:3, stating that children are a gift of the LORD [3] ). Speaking through Moses, God instructed children to honor their parents (Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you .... Deut. 5:16), and parents to teach their children (These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons.... Deut. 6:6-7). Building on the natural concern of parents regarding their children's future, the book of Proverbs encouraged parents to [t]rain up a child in the way he should go, [e]ven when he is old he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6. The Apostle Paul reminded the Ephesians of this parental responsibility, instructing them to not provoke [their] children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Ephesians 6:4. And throughout Scripture, the relationship between parents and their children is used as an analogy to the relationship of God with His people (But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God.... John 1:12), emphasizing the significant and permanent nature of that relationship. In the century before American independence, prominent legal scholars discussed the rights and responsibilities of parents in their writings on the law. For example, Hugo Grotius, often considered the founder of modern international law, [4] affirmed the authority of parents to make decisions regarding their own children. [5] John Locke, whose works formed an essential part of the intellectual foundation for the American quest for liberty, stated that parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over [their children], a right that arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring. [6] Similarly, Samuel von Puffendorf, [7] a well known, 17th-century German legal scholar whose works, along with those of Locke, provided a foundation for the more famous writings of William Blackstone, [8] noted that [f]rom marriage spring children, over whom paternal authority has been established. [9] Finally, Thomas Rutherforth, a lecturer and author whose works were noted for their influence on the development of American law, [10] argued that since nature cannot be supposed to prescribe a duty to the parents without granting them the means, which are necessary for the discharge of such duty; it follows, that nature has given the parents all the authority, which is necessary for bringing up the child in a proper manner. [11] Post-revolutionary American law continued to respect the rights of parents. Chancellor Kent, for example, discussing the liability of parents for the contracts of their children, stated that [w]hat is necessary for the child is left to the discretion of the parent; ... there must be a clear omission of duty ... before a third person can interfere.... 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law -93 (1826).