Content deleted Content added
the article is listed in the navbox per WP:NAV-WITHIN |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Legal term – "in the place of a parent"}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}}▼
{{italic title}}
{{about|legal concept|the ''Law & Order'' episode|Law & Order (season 10){{!}}''Law & Order'' (season 10)}}
{{Youth rights sidebar}}▼
{{childcare}}
The term '''''in loco parentis''''', [[Contemporary Latin|Latin]] for "in the place of a parent"<ref name="law.com">{{cite web |url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=in+loco+parentis&type=1&submit1.x=86&submit1.y=20&submit1=Look+up |title=Law.com Law Dictionary – ''in loco parentis'' |access-date=3 September 2008 |publisher=Law.com }}</ref> refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a [[parent]]. Originally derived from English [[common law]], it is applied in two separate areas of the law.▼
▲The term '''''in loco parentis''''', [[Contemporary Latin|Latin]] for "in the place of a parent",<ref name="law.com">{{cite web |url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=in+loco+parentis&type=1&submit1.x=86&submit1.y=20&submit1=Look+up |title=Law.com Law Dictionary – ''in loco parentis'' |access-date=3 September 2008 |publisher=Law.com }}</ref> refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a [[parent]]
Originally derived from English [[common law]], the doctrine is applied in two separate areas of the law. First, it grants educational institutions such as colleges and schools discretion to act in the best interests of their [[student]]s, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' [[civil liberties]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stamatakos |first1=Theodore C. |title=The Doctrine of In Loco Parentis, Tort Liability and the Student-College Relationship |journal=Indiana Law Journal |date=1990 |volume=65 |page=471}}</ref> Second, this doctrine
▲Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.<ref>[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/utah-high-court-denies-parental-rights.php An example of family law ''in loco parentis''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421152559/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/utah-high-court-denies-parental-rights.php |date=21 April 2008 }}</ref>
The ''in loco parentis'' doctrine is distinct from the doctrine of ''[[parens patriae]]'', the psychological parent doctrine, and [[adoption]].<ref name="In Loco Parentis -- Quaqua Society">[http://www.quaqua.org/inlocoparentis.htm In Loco Parentis – Quaqua Society]</ref>
Line 13:
==Situation specific==
<!-- CAUTION: Alphabetical list only.-->
===Education===
====Primary and secondary education====
[[Cheadle Hulme School]], originally known as the Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks Orphans Schools, formed in 1855, adopted ''in loco parentis'' as its motto, well before the world's first public education act, the [[Elementary Education Act 1870]] ([[33 & 34 Vict.]] c. 75).<ref name=isyb>''Independent Schools Yearbook 2012–2013'', A&C Black, 2013, pp. 81–82</ref>
The first major limitation to this came in the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case ''[[West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]]'' (1943), in which the court ruled that students cannot be forced to salute the [[flag of the United States|American flag]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Sharma|first=Garima|date=2019-06-10|title=In loco Parentis - Legal Maxim|url=http://lawtimesjournal.in/in-loco-parentis/|access-date=2021-04-09|website=Law Times Journal|language=en-US}}</ref> More prominent change came in the 1960s and 1970s in such cases as ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]]'' (1969), when the Supreme Court decided that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason – whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior – materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of [[freedom of speech]]." Adult speech is also limited by "time, place and manner" restrictions and therefore such limits do not rely on schools acting ''in loco parentis''.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-04-20|title=In loco Parentis - Criminal Justice - IresearchNet|url=http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/school-violence/in-loco-parentis/|access-date=2021-04-09|website=Criminal Justice|language=en-US}}</ref>
In ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]]'' (1969), the Supreme Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.
In ''[[New Jersey v. T. L. O.]]'' (1985) Justice White wrote:
{{quote|
The case upheld the search of a purse while on public school property based upon reasonable suspicion, indicating there is a balancing between the student's legitimate [[expectation of privacy]] and the public school's interest in maintaining order and discipline. However, in ''[[Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier]]'' (1987) the Supreme Court ruled that "[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications (such as a school newspaper) if content is "...inconsistent with its basic educational mission." Other student issues such as school [[dress code]]s along with locker, cell phone, and personal laptop computer searches by public school officials have not yet been tested in the Supreme Court.
Line 34 ⟶ 29:
Private institutions are given significantly more authority over their students than public ones, and are generally allowed to arbitrarily dictate rules. In the [[Kentucky Supreme Court|Kentucky State Supreme Court]] case ''[[Gott v. Berea College]]'' (1913), it was upheld that a "college or university may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who enters as a student implicitly agrees to conform to such rules of government", while publicly funded institutions could not claim the same ability.
In ''[[Morse v. Frederick]]'' (2007) Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], concurring with the majority, argued that ''Tinker's'' ruling contradicted "the traditional understanding of the judiciary's role in relation to public schooling," and ignored the history of public education.<ref>127 S.Ct. 2634</ref> He believed the judiciary's role to determine whether students have freedom of expression was limited by ''in loco parentis''. He cited ''[[Lander v. Seaver]]'' (1859), which held that ''in loco parentis'' allowed schools to punish student expression that the school or teacher believed contradicted the school's interests and educational goals. This ruling declared that the only restriction the doctrine imposed were acts of legal malice or acts that caused permanent injury. Neither of these were the case with ''Tinker''.
====Higher education====
Though ''in loco parentis'' continues to apply to primary and secondary education in the U.S., application of the concept has largely disappeared in [[higher education]]. This was not always the case.
Prior to the 1960s, undergraduates were subject to many restrictions on their private lives. Women were generally subject to [[curfew]]s as early as 10 pm, and dormitories were sex-segregated. Some universities expelled students—especially female students—who were deemed "morally" undesirable. More importantly, universities saw fit to restrict [[freedom of speech]], on campus, often forbidding organizations out of favor or with different views from speaking, organizing, demonstrating, or otherwise acting on campus. These restrictions were severely criticized by the student movements of the 1960s,<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Edwards |first1=G. Thomas |title=Student Activism at Pomona, Willamette, and Whitman, 1965-1971 |date=2008 |publisher=[[Whitman College and Northwest Archives]] |location=Walla Walla, Washington |url=http://www.campusactivism.org/server-new/uploads/student_activism_historypomona_willamette_whitman.pdf |oclc=228308410 |author-link=G. Thomas Edwards}}</ref> and the [[Free Speech Movement]] at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] formed partly on account of them, inspiring students elsewhere to step up their opposition.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Movement and the Sixties |last=Anderson |first=Terry H.
The landmark 1961 case ''[[Dixon v. Alabama]]'' was the beginning of the end for ''in loco parentis'' in U.S. higher education. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] found that [[Alabama State University|Alabama State College]] could not summarily expel students without due process. However, that still does not prevent students who exercise their rights from being subject to legal action for violation of institutional rules.<ref name=bluto>{{cite journal |last=Hoover |first=Eric |date=5 September 2008 |title='Animal House' at 30: O Bluto, Where Art Thou? |url=http://chronicle.com/article/Animal-House-at-30-O/28169 |journal=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |volume=55 |issue=2 |pages=34–35}}
Line 45 ⟶ 40:
===Hospital and nursing homes===
Caregivers and management have the duty of care in place of the parent.
In the absence of parents, another relative or person ''in loco parentis'' can give consent for children.
For children in care, the local authority usually has full parental rights and the director of social services or deputy needs to sign the consent form. If the child is in voluntary care, the parents still act as guardians and their consent should be obtained.<ref>G., Q. C. R., Biers, S., A., A. T. H., Deakin, P. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2020). Mechanisms of Surgical Disease and Surgery in Practice. In Essential surgery: Problems, diagnosis and management (pp. 1–16). essay, Elsevier.
</ref>
In law, parents have responsibility for their child. Staff have an ethical duty to ensure that the care of the child is equally good no matter the educational attainments of the parents. On rare occasions, however, physician is faced with parents whose level of literacy or understanding prevents them from properly grasping what is happening. Sometimes other members of the family may be able to act ''in loco parentis'', and it is reassuring to have supportive grandparents who can make rational suggestions in the best interests of all concerned. Occasionally, it may be necessary to formalize this arrangement. If there is any doubt about who carries parental responsibility, or competence, the child-safeguarding team must be involved.<ref>Rennie, J. M., Laing, I. A., Piyasena, C., & McHaffie, H. E. (2012). Counselling and support for parents and families. In Rennie and Roberton's textbook of Neonatology (pp. 95–101). essay, Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
</ref>
==Country specific==
===India===
Indian law has provision for ''in loco parentis''. Under Indian law non-human entities such as animals, trusts (including those established for estate planning), charitable organizations, corporations, managing bodies, etc. and several other non-human entitles have been given the status of "[[Legal person#
==See also==
| |||