Opinion ID: 1245739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Parental Duties as Restricting Availability

Text: Numerous statutes emphasize the responsibilities of parents or guardians in the care and upbringing of children. Civil Code section 197 establishes a right of custody in the parents of an unmarried minor child. Other sections of our law provide for the designation of a particular adult or adults as custodians of a child should the initial status of the mother and father be disturbed by divorce, adoption, or other causes. (See Civ. Code, §§ 228, 229, 4600; Prob. Code, § 1407.) The parents of a child are under an obligation to give him support and education suitable to his circumstances. (Civ. Code, §§ 196, 196a.) And they may be subject to criminal penalties if they neglect their responsibilities. (Pen. Code, §§ 270, 270f.) Because of the crucial importance of parental responsibility and supervision, it would be anomalous if the Legislature intended that the obligation of the prospective claimant of unemployment benefits to accept work be irreconcilable with the duties of parenthood. In the unemployment insurance system, the need to balance such duties and the burdens of work is appropriately recognized in the good cause qualification to the availability requirements of the code. [14] (4) `[T]he term good cause as used in the statute means an adequate cause, a cause that comports with the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Code and with other laws.' ( Syrek v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1960) 54 Cal.2d 519, 529 [7 Cal. Rptr. 97, 354 P.2d 625].) The responsibilities our laws place on parents, and the importance to their children and society that those duties be discharged, mandate that the good cause concept not be defined so narrowly as to compel unemployed parents who remain available to a significant labor market to fulfill their parental responsibilities only upon pain of losing their unemployment benefits. (5) We conclude that a claimant who is parent or guardian of a minor has good cause for refusing employment which conflicts with parental activities reasonably necessary for the care or education of the minor if there exist no reasonable alternative means of discharging those responsibilities. [15] Indeed, It is difficult to imagine a better cause for rejection of employment.... ( In re Watson (1968) 273 N.C. 629 [161 S.E.2d 1, 7]; see also Yordamlis v. Florida Industrial Commission (Fla. 1963) 158 So.2d 791; Tung-Sol Electric v. Board of Review etc. (1955) supra, 114 A.2d 285, 288; see also Annot., 35 A.L.R.3d 1129, 1137-1145.)