C’mon, spring! I’ve had enough of the all-too-brief glimpses of warm, get-my-hopes-up weather, only to be followed by snow and thermometer dips. Today I walked out of the office after work was over to find plunging temperatures — and my spirits plunged, too, when I saw that it’s supposed to be cold and crappy this weekend.
Could spring finally be sprung, already?
Like many states, New York has a law that bars recording communications unless at least one of the parties to the communication gives consent. Earlier this week, the highest court in New York considered whether parents can legally eavesdrop when one of the parties to the communication is their child — and held that parents can do so under certain circumstances.
The ruling came in a case where the divorced father of a five-year-old boy, over an open phone line, heard his son having a “violent conversation” with his ex-wife’s bodybuilder boyfriend. The father recorded the conversation. (Disturbingly, though, the father apparently didn’t contact authorities to give them the recording until months later, when the ex-wife and boyfriend were arrested after neighbors heard screaming and crying coming from the house.) The boyfriend argued that the recorded conversation shouldn’t be allowed into evidence at his trial because neither party to the conversation consented.
The New York Court of Appeals disagreed, and concluded that the father had “a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that it was necessary for the welfare of his son to record the violent conversation he found himself listening to.” Three of the judges on that court dissented, concluding that the ruling raised policy concerns that should be left up to the legislature and could raise issues in divorce situations, with the parties to the break-up planting bugs to record conversations between their children and the other party to the divorce.
It’s hard to imagine that anyone would argue that a parent who heard their little boy being threatened with violence couldn’t making a recording to try to help their child — but then again, it’s hard to imagine that a father who made such a recording wouldn’t immediately take the recording to the police to try to get his son out of a dangerous situation. The father’s inaction in the case makes the ugly divorce scenarios that apparently motivated the dissenting judges seem more plausible.
But one person’s bad judgment shouldn’t mask a key reality: parents should be permitted to eavesdrop and intervene when they honestly believe their child is at risk. Whether it’s bullying on a school bus, or a situation where a child is falling under the sway of a sexual predator, there are many instances where parents could legitimately decide that making a recording of a conversation involving their child was the right thing to do. It’s not snooping, it’s trying to protect your kid — and we shouldn’t let speculative worries about what might happen in other worst-case scenarios prevent parents from following their basic parenting instincts when it comes to trying to do right by their children.