The Michigan
Court of Appeals has just decided a case which is very important to
parents. The case, Williams v Williams, involved the question of
whether a parent has the right to "eavesdrop" on his/her child's
telephone conversations without the child's knowledge or consent. There
are both state and federal eavesdropping statutes that generally
prohibit the surreptitious monitoring of conversations in which one is
not a participant.
In Williams,
the father who did the eavesdropping defended his activity by claiming
that it was necessary to discover whether the child's mother was
disparaging him in violation of a court order. This defense was
rejected. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that under Michigan's
wiretapping statute, a custodial parent does not
automatically have the child's "implied consent" to listen in, even if
there are valid parental reasons for doing so. The Court withheld
judgment on whether or not the federal wiretapping
statute would allow this defense.
The bottom
line is that parents may be subject to criminal prosecution under state
law for eavesdropping if they listen in on their children's
conversations. While the Williams case involved listening to the
other parent and the child during a conversation, the statute presumably
applies to any conversation that the listener is not
participating in himself or herself.
Many parents
may have concerns about this decision as it subtracts a right to monitor
a child's activities at the same time as the parent's "responsibility"
for that child is increasing in the eyes of society. The proper forum
for raising such concerns is your local state representative because
he/she can propose changes (or exceptions) to existing statutes. The
Court of Appeals is limited to interpreting statutes in cases like
Williams and finding those statutes unenforceable only if they
violate constitutional provisions, conflict with other laws, and/or are
too vague to be enforced.