Can a School Keep a Child from their Parents, as a byproduct of discipline? (USA) This issue had been bugging me for a while, and I think I finally figured out how to phrase it: As one of the punishments for infractions, some schools will detain children, hold them past the end of normal class schedule as punishment. Parents and teachers don't always see eye to eye on this, so my question is this: What happens if a parent refuses to allow the school to detain their child? I imagine that in the case of the weekend detention, the parent simply doesn't bring their child to the detention. Is the parent in any legal jeopardy for failing to do this? If a parent shows up to school on the day of their child's scheduled detention, demanding their child be released at the usual time, must the school comply? Strictly speaking I'm interested a legal perspective as is written in laws, not in contracts. I am aware that a parent may have signed a consent form to such detentions as part of the enrollment process, which could trigger civil action Jurisdiction: I'm in NC, USA, but an answer from another jurisdiction is always welcome :)
new-south-wales Almost certainly a school can enforce detention as part of discipline Government schools The Education Act 1990 at s35 gives the Minister power to discipline students and the power to delegate that discipline. That delegation has been done and individual principals are required to develop and implement disciplinary policies in their schools in consultation with staff, parents and students. If such a policy included out-of-school-hours detention then it would be a legal requirement on students and parents. Failure to comply could trigger further disciplinary action including suspension and expulsion. All of this would have to be done in a manner that ensured procedural fairness to be legal. Failure to comply could trigger civil action for truancy - students are required by law to attend school: this would include lawful disciplinary action. As a practical matter, this seems unlikely but it is possible in theory. Private schools Are under no obligation to provide education to any particular student. Although the Education Act still applies to them, they can reach for the suspension/expulsion buttons more quickly in response to what would be a breach of contract in failing to adhere to school rules. The expelled student would then become the government’s problem.
Only in California. The First Amendment provides a student essentially no protection from discipline by a private university. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (&quot;The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech. The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.&quot;); Vaynberg v. Seton Hall Univ., No. CIV.A. 09-4999 FSH, 2010 WL 4510904, at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2010) (&quot;In order for the First Amendment to apply, the challenged conduct must be deemed 'state action.' Seton Hall is a private, Catholic university. ... Because there is no evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Seton Hall's conduct relevant to this lawsuit was “state action,” Seton Hall is entitled to summary judgment.&quot;) Some states, however, have passed laws requiring private schools to provide some of the protections of the First Amendment. The most robust of these is California's Leonard Law, which essentially requires private schools to adhere to the First Amendment. Other states also recognize some measure of free-speech rights for students at private institutions. For instance, both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey supreme courts have held that their state constitutions' free-speech clauses (which, unlike the First Amendment, say nothing about the government) protected peaceful protesters who distributed leaflets on the campuses of private colleges.
Almost no constitutional right, for the most part, applies or gives rise to an all-encompassing right at all times. Schools can determine that certain times are off limits as activity during those times may interrupt the environment most conducive to learning, or for other articulable reasons; this is fine so long as it is applied evenly. Schools may say you may not hand out literature at certain times, only before or after classes, weekends, or put limits on the place or manner of distribution. There are examples of this premise that exist, pertaining to nearly every right, otherwise considered absolute. This is no different than the principle that while Americans enjoy the right to free speech, not all speech is protected at all times, or that the right to bear arms does not apply to all people, places, or environs.
This question mixes up two separate although related issues: Does a student have a first amendment right to perform &quot;sacred&quot; music during school time? Is a public school allowed to include such in its curriculum, or does the First Amendment's Establishment Clause forbid that? The answer hinted at in the question applies only to issue 2, while the title of the question goes to issue 1. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) held that school officials may not compose an official prayer, and mandate or encourage its recitation. (mandatory recitation would probably have been prohibited by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) much earlier.) The ruling of Engel v. Vitale, would also have applied to sung prayers. Later rulings, consistent with Engle prohibited &quot;one minute for prayer or meditation&quot; ( Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)), clergy-led prayer at middle school graduation ceremonies (Lee v. Weisman (1992)), and school-organized student-led prayer at high school football games (Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000)). But none of these prohibited religious music as part of an instructional music program that was not a form of worship. All the above cases prohibited school-organized prayers intended as prayer or worship. As to issue #1, it is settled that students have the right to pray privately, in ways that do not disrupt school activities. It is hard to see how performing religious music could be done privately and non-disruptively. Neither students nor their parents have a right to insist that certain topics be included in the school curriculum. The students have a right to pray, but not to insist that the school organize prayers or include religious music in its music program.
In the United States, the answer is no. The entire point of guardianship is that the ward is not competent to make legal decisions himself; the court appoints the guardian to consent to things on the ward's behalf. So the parents wouldn't need the child's consent, but they would need to demonstrate to the court that the child is incompetent to make legal decisions and that they are the best people to serve as guardians. To the best of my knowledge, granting guardianship over an adult is almost always limited to cases of serious mental incapacity, such as a vegetative state, mental retardation, Alzheimer's, etc. Is someone is aware of guardianship and researching it online, that is probably a good sign that the person is not a candidate for guardianship.
Assuming that all of these locations are in the same state, this is not an issue of federal law and is not governed by the U.S. Constitution. The geographical jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement officers is exclusively a matter of state law and has no single correct resolution. Different states handle the issue differently. Even if state law or the state constitution prohibited the arrest, this violation of state law or the state constitution, would not give rise to a federal claim for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which may vindicate only federal rights, and could not form a basis for a collateral attack on a state court conviction in a federal court habeas corpus petition which is likewise limited to vindications of federal law rights. Any remedy would have to be secured in the state court system invoking state law rights (assuming for sake of argument that state law provides such a remedy), or in a diversity lawsuit in federal court applying state substantive law, if the defendant was from another state and the amount in controversy was in excess of $75,000.
No. Refusing to tell the address alone is not a reason to detain somebody. But there are situations where the authorities can demand that a person identifies himself or herself, including such details as the address (or lack of a permanent residency). In such a situation, failure to identify yourself can get you locked up. Also, the tone of your posting seems to question the legitimacy of the UK government and legal system as a whole. That is a box you're putting yourself into, and the company you find there is not very pleasant.
How I understand your question You have asked about mechanisms to &quot;ensure the return&quot; or something that will &quot;trigger a law-enforcement or legal action if the child does not leave the US on the end of the submitted trip schedule.&quot; So I take it as premises of your question that there is a parenting agreement regarding schedule and return, and this trip will happen. Dale M's answer provides advice about what he recommends to a person in such a situation. However, I recognize that many parenting orders include a term that allows international travel that can't be unreasonably refused by the other parent,1 or that allow international travel with no consent necessary.2 There is no mechanism There is no mechanism to pre-register a potential violation of a parenting agreement with a foreign state. I cannot cite to a source to prove a negative, but I am familiar with the operation of the Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention regimes and none that I have encountered have such a mechanism. I have also spent some time looking to see if I have missed something, and am still convinced there is no such mechanism. 1. 2020 BCPC 16: &quot;He shall not unreasonably withhold his written consent to such a trip. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Y.N. has liberty to apply for a court order. If the court, on such application, finds that W.G. has unreasonably withheld his consent to such a trip, he is hereby put on notice that he may be ordered to pay Y.N.’s expenses incurred in bringing the application.&quot; 2. 2018 ABQB 1031 (&quot;Each party shall be entitled to travel internationally with the children without the consent of the other party upon providing 30 days notice of such travel along with a full itinerary including flight information, destination, where the parties are staying and contact information.&quot;); 2010 ABPC 410 (&quot;I will allow T.C. to travel outside the country without the written consent of the father.&quot;); 2021 ONCJ 440 (&quot;Either party may travel with the Child outside of Canada during his or her parenting time. The Father requires the consent of the Mother, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The Mother may travel internationally with the Child without the consent of the Father, but she must advise him accordingly.&quot;); 2020 ABQB 434 (&quot;either party may travel during their respective vacation or ordinary parenting time in Canada or internationally to any Hague Convention Country, without the consent of the other party&quot;); 2017 BCSC 1463 (&quot;The claimant is at liberty to travel with the Children both in Canada and internationally without the consent of the respondent.&quot;)