A Parent's Testimony: Family Law Implications

In the United States, the question of whether a parent can be forced to testify against their child in family law is complex and varies by state. While the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in a criminal trial the right to confrontation, meaning that accusers must publicly state allegations, there is no federal parent-child privilege, and only four states recognize this privilege. In these states, the privilege is limited to criminal cases, juvenile proceedings, or both, and only extended to minor children. In the majority of states, parents can be compelled to testify against their children and vice versa in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, this scenario is relatively rare, and prosecutors are often reluctant to force parents to testify against their children due to social and strategic costs.

Children can be subpoenaed to testify against their parents

In the US, children can be subpoenaed to testify against their parents in criminal cases if they are witnesses or victims of crimes. While it may seem unjust, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in a criminal trial the "right to confrontation". In other words, a person's accusers must come to court and publicly state the allegations against the defendant, who has the right to cross-examine those witnesses. This right was included in the Constitution to prevent the government from convicting people of crimes based on reasons unrelated to whether they committed the crime, such as political reasons.

When minors are subpoenaed, their parents are also served a copy of the subpoena. While parents have little say in whether their child testifies, they can attempt to quash the subpoena by demonstrating that the minor had no involvement or was not a witness to any of the facts of the case. If a parent refuses to bring their child to court after they have been subpoenaed, they can be held in contempt of court and may face penalties such as fines or jail time.

Courts and legal systems have protocols in place to protect child witnesses, particularly when testifying against a parent. These protocols may include ensuring a safe and supportive environment, allowing the presence of support persons or advocates, utilizing child-friendly courtrooms, or employing specialized questioning techniques to minimize any potential trauma or distress for the child.

Parents can be subpoenaed to testify against their children

In the United States, only four states recognize a parent-child privilege. This means that in most of the country, parents can be subpoenaed to testify against their children. While it is relatively rare for prosecutors to force parents to testify against their children, it can and does happen.

In general, anyone can be called as a witness in a trial or other legal proceeding, including family members such as parents, siblings, and spouses. This is known as "subpoena power," which gives the court the authority to summon witnesses to give testimony. If a person refuses to testify after a legal summons, they can be held in contempt of court and may face penalties such as fines or even jail time.

There are certain privileges that can prevent or limit family members from being forced to testify in some cases. For example, spousal testimonial privilege protects married couples from being forced to testify against each other in court. This privilege also takes the form of an absolute privilege against adverse spousal testimony and a limited privilege that prevents the disclosure of marital confidences. However, these privileges do not extend to other family members, including parents and children.

While there is no federal parent-child privilege, some individual states have recognized a limited form of this privilege. For example, in Massachusetts, "a parent shall not testify against the parent's minor child and a minor child shall not testify against the child's parent." Similarly, Connecticut has recognized a parent-child privilege in juvenile proceedings, while Minnesota and Idaho allow for the privilege to be asserted in both civil and criminal courts. However, it is important to note that even in these states, there are exceptions to the privilege in cases involving violence or abuse committed by the parent or child against other family members.

The lack of a federal parent-child privilege has been a topic of debate and concern for many. Some argue that the trust between parents and children needs to be protected and that the government should not have the right to interfere in familial relationships. Additionally, the perceived sanctity of familial relationships and privacy interests is reflected in common law and codified legal norms. However, others argue that the privilege for parents cannot come at the expense of justice for victims, especially in cases where a child has committed a crime or hurt a sibling.

There is no federal parent-child privilege in the US

In the United States, there is no federal parent-child privilege, meaning that a parent can be forced to testify against their child, and vice versa. While the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against self-incrimination, this does not extend to testifying against family members. In fact, in some states, refusing to testify in court after a legal summons can result in contempt of court, which may lead to fines or even jail time.

The spousal testimonial privilege exists to protect the sanctity of marriage and promote open communication between spouses. However, this privilege does not extend to parents and their children. While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the importance of confidentiality in certain relationships, such as attorney-client and spousal privilege, it has not extended this privilege to parent-child relationships.

In 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of parent-child privilege in Under Seal v. United States. The Court provided a comprehensive analysis of the rules governing privilege and concluded that there is no federal recognition of a parent-child privilege. The Court's decision was based on the federal rules of evidence, which are governed by common law unless otherwise specified by the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court rulings.

While the Fourth Circuit recognized that some federal district courts have found that parents and children share a confidential relationship, it did not establish a broad parent-child privilege. For example, in the 1982 case of In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Greenberg), the court limited the privilege due to the mother's religious convictions, which prevented her from testifying against her daughter. Similarly, in 1996, the Eastern District of Washington held that there is a right to privacy associated with family life, suggesting that a parent-child privilege should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

However, it is important to note that only a few states, including Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York, have recognized some form of parent-child privilege. In these states, there may be legal protections in place to prevent a parent from being forced to testify against their child. Nonetheless, the overwhelming weight of authority in the U.S. is against the recognition of a broad parent-child evidentiary privilege.

Some US states have a parent-child privilege

In the United States, a parent can be subpoenaed to testify against their child in family law, and vice versa. While this may seem unfair, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in a criminal trial the "right to confrontation". This means that the accused has the right to cross-examine their witnesses, usually through an attorney.

However, it's important to note that some US states have a parent-child privilege that can prevent or limit a parent or child from being forced to testify against each other in certain cases. This privilege is based on the confidential nature of specific communications between a parent and child and the privacy that is a constitutionally protectable interest of the family. While federal courts have generally rejected the existence of this privilege, a few states, including Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York, have recognised it in some form, either by statute or common law.

For example, in 1982, the District Court of Connecticut recognised a parent-child privilege based on the First Amendment Free Exercise clause. In that case, a mother refused to testify against her daughter based on her religious convictions. Similarly, in 1996, the Eastern District of Washington held that there is a right to privacy associated with family life, which supports the recognition of a parent-child privilege.

It's worth noting that the application of the parent-child privilege can be complex and may depend on various factors, such as the nature of the testimony and the age of the child. In the case of Under Seal v. United States, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the creation of a parent-child privilege, finding that the adult son did not demonstrate a strong need for the privilege as his testimony was not expected to damage the father-son relationship.

Other countries have a parent-child privilege

In the United States, there is no federal statute or common law that explicitly establishes a parent-child privilege in court proceedings. However, a few states, including New York, have recognised a common-law parent-child privilege in certain circumstances, although this is not uniformly applied across the country.

In the 1982 case of In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Greenberg), the District Court of Connecticut recognised a limited parent-child privilege based on the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. The court respected the mother's religious conviction that she could not testify against her daughter, even under legal compulsion. Similarly, in 1983, a Nevada district court in In re Agosto found that the parent-child privilege is based on the confidential nature of specific communications and the privacy interests of the family, which are constitutionally protected.

In contrast, in the 2014 case of Under Seal v. United States, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to recognise a parent-child privilege, finding that there was no strong showing of the need for such a privilege. The court noted that the son was an adult and that his testimony was unlikely to damage the father-son relationship or lead to any adverse consequences.

While there is no federal recognition of a parent-child privilege in the United States, some states have taken steps to protect the privacy and confidentiality of family communications. However, it is important to note that these privileges are not absolute, and there may be exceptions or limitations in certain situations.

Frequently asked questions