We’re all familiar with the dramatic line, “You’re ruining my life, Mom!” Whether you used this phrase a few times during your tween life or you have only heard it in dramatic TV shows or books, there seems to be one apparent theme to this whole attitude: it’s a parent-vs.-kid world out there, and it’s up to us as the kids to stand up for ourselves and put those intrusive parents in their place. Although this philosophy appeals to our desire to be respected as independent entities apart from our parents, it seems to create a grey area. What exactly makes it okay for us to get red in the face and spit out this motto? What is too far when it comes to parents’ interaction and monitoring of our lives, and what is simply good parenting?
Lane New, a 16-year-old teen of Little Rock, Ark., has a strong opinion on what is too far regarding his mother’s interaction with his personal space. Lane is suing his mother, Denise New, for harassment after Denise logged onto his facebook page without permission. While on his site, she allegedly sent 4-10 slanderous e-mails to his friends. Before logging off, she also changed his password so he would not be able to log into his facebook account again. Without much background information, Lane may indeed have a plausible case. However, it is important to note there are always two sides to a story.
Denise claims she did nothing wrong and was simply acting within the parameters of good parenting. Lane, who has had a reputation for confrontation with the police in the past, is a child who Denise feels needs much supervision. So, doesn’t it seem fair she monitor the ins and outs of his facebook account? Most parents behind Denise say she was absolutely working within her rights as a parent to make sure her son was behaving properly.
However, the dilemma isn’t that the mother logged onto his account but that she sent messages to his friends that attacked his character and lifestyle. Lane and his supporters argue that if she had only gotten on his account to check on how he was acting, that would have been “annoying” but uncontroversial. She crossed the line when she sent the slanderous e-mails. Thus, Lane New has a case.
The boy’s supporters have gone even further in defending themselves against attacks about the simplicity of this case, saying Denise, by logging onto his account, was committing identity theft against her son. They argue, because she was disguising herself as Lane and misrepresenting herself as him to his online friends, she was posing as someone other than herself and was therefore stealing his identity. Even though this is a logical claim, by the definition of identity theft, Lane is not charging his mother for this offence. As such, harassment charges are serving as the only charge for this case.
The harassment charges were deemed justifiable on May 8, 2009, by Lane’s representatives, and the case is in the works right now with a court date set for May 12, 2010. Prior to the legal conflict, the mother claims she and Lane had shared a healthy relationship. However, law enforcement does not take this to be accurate, seeing as both she and her son have dealt with the law before for suspicious violence and domestic arguments. Other evidence of their messy relationship is the fact Lane has been living with his grandmother for the past year.
Whether they have a healthy relationship or are in the midst of a family feud, both Lane and his mother are adamant they will do all they can to ensure they come out as the victor in this case. Lane, because he is a minor, has not made public announcements. However, we do know he is suing for harassment charges and wishes to receive a no-contact order for his mom once the case is finished.
Denise has much to say in response to what she sees as a frivolous case. During an interview with KAT-TV, Denise said, “Oh yeah, I’m going to fight it. If I have to go even higher up, I’m going to. I’m not gonna let this rest. I think this could be a precedent-setting moment for parents.” It will be interesting to see who comes out victorious: the child who feels his personal rights are being abused or the mother who thinks she is doing all she can to ensure the well-being of her minor son.
Although the harassment charges have made this case justifiable, I can’t help but agree with Denise that this case may set a precedent for other parent-vs.-child conflicts. Because there is no definite line distinguishing what is acceptable and what is too far for parents when monitoring their children, what is there to stop any angry kid from taking his or her parents to court? Although Denise did act unethically by sending messages to her son’s friends from his page, are parents who read their children’s text messages or diaries setting themselves up to be sued as well?
If more parent-child controversy cases are presented to the courts, then it seems logical to believe children would be given free reign with how they act, because the parents could be held liable for interfering in some way.
The inability of parents to interfere with their children’s actions could essentially strip their right to parent and likewise strip children of their role as children. What is to stop a ten-year-old from suing her mother for snooping in her diary or keeping teenagers from suing their parents because they found them reading their text messages? Because Lane’s case has been accepted, it seems this could only pave the way for more superfluous parent-vs.-child cases in courts.
In addition to creating more opportunity for family cases such as these to make their way to the courts, Lane’s case could serve as a precedent in creating bad parenting skills. Although it may seem intrusive, there is an abundance of teens whose parents, after snooping a little on their phones or computers, discovered that they were up to illegal or harmful activities. Most of these parents, upon finding such things, were able to counsel their children and point them back on track. If Lane’s case makes it so parents can be sued for their interference with their children’s lives, it make sense to believe children who need guidance and parental monitoring will slip under the radar and thus fall into more trouble.
In conclusion, although Lane has a right to be angry with his mother for her seemingly snoopy interference with his facebook account, taking this issue to court should not be the answer. By doing so, this is making it acceptable for future, similarly frivolous cases to make it to the courts and could result in a flood of these suits. Kids need to be kids, and parents need to be parents. Therefore, cases such as these should be left to dinner table discussion and not legal decision.
