PARENTS, AND THE LAW

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33061, 31 October 1972, Page 14

PARENTS, AND THE LAW

In the case of a girl under 16 being seduced, can her father sue the man involved for damages under common law?

He can, but no such actions have been brought in New Zealand in recent years, Mr A. K. Grant, the deputychairman of the New Zealand Legal Association, says in reply to a correspondent who raised several questions relating to parents and the law.

The correspondent, B. M MacLeod, wrote:—

“In these days of questioning and rebellion by the young people, many parents would like to know where they stand regarding their responsibilties and privileges under law. Would a member of the Law Society or the Police Department answer these questions? (1) Up to what age is a parent

[responsible for his child? (2) What are the legal responsibilities and obligations |of a parent? (3) At what age ‘may a child leave home without parental sanction? (4) Can [a parent demand the return to the home of an under-age [child? (5) Has the law con- [ cerning unlawful carnal i knowledge been repealed 9 (6) Can a parent take legal [action against the male involved in these cases? (7) [Can parents take legal action [against persons or organisations overriding their authority in cases of distribution of illegal or subversive literature? (8) Would it be a good thing if there was a Parents’ Charter officially laying down their rights and responsibilites to their children?” TWO CRITICAL AGES I Mr Grant answers:— (1) The legal relationship of guardianship exists between parent and child until the child reaches 20. However, the child is entitled to leave home without parental sanction upon reaching 18. (2) This is a very large question, which cannot be answered briefly. However, your correspondent may be interested in the provisions of section 13 of the Child Welfare Act, 1925. This section provides that any child who is neglected, indigent, or delinquent or is not under proper control or who is living in an environment detrimental to its physical or moral well-being may be committed to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare (formerly the Child Welfare branch). It would seem by inference from this section, therefore, that a parent is under a duty not to allow his child to become neglected, indigent or delinquent and to ensure that the child is under proper

[control and is living in an[ [environment not detrimental I to its physical or moral] well-being. (3) See answer to (1). | (4) Section 19 of the Guar-I [dianship Act, 1968 entitles ai [parent to apply to the Court! |to enforce his rights of custody of a child under 18. (5) The law concerning unlawful carnal knowledge has [not been repealed and it is] ian offence under the Crimes; [Act to have sexual inter-[ [course with a girl under 16.1 (6) The parent of a daugh-! [ter who, while under 16, has! [had sexual intercourse, can! complain to the police and] [thereby initiate a prosecution; [against the male involved.! [At common law the father of such a daughter was entitled[ I to sue his daughter’s seducer [and recover damages against [him. Such actions have not [been brought in New Zealandin recent years and although! [the right of action persists [here it was abolished in Eng [ [land in 1970. Its abolition in I [New Zealand has been re-| [commended by the Torts and. General Law Reform Com-i mittee and its extinction! seems imminent. NO “SUBVERSIVE” (7) If a parent discovered] that somebody was distributing to his child, material classified as indecent by the Indecent Publications Tri-[ bunal he could no doubt complain to the police. Fortun- [ ately for us all there is no general category of “subversive literature” declared illegal in this country and a parent has no right to take action against any person distributing literature which he may regard as “subversive.” I would point out that what may seem subversive to one i parent may be perfectly acceptable to another. Parents ; have no authority which can !

Ibe overridden in the case of literature. subversive or otherwise. (8) This is really a question for Parliament to answer. There may be arguments for codifying the law relating to parent and child. My own view, however, is that the parent-child relationship is so much more than a legal relationship that the law can only affect it peripherally. Bad parents or unfortunate parents would not find that their children respected them more because they could point to a charter; good parents would not need such a document to define their rights and obligations for them.