When Schools' Zero-Tolerance Policies Make Zero Sense

High school student expelled for blowing pieces of paper at classmates through a tube pen. Read the full article from Legal Blog Watch here.

Legal Consequences of Teen Sexuality

The following question was posted here:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-16-year-old-consent-to-sex-in-ma-to-a-29-yea-233319.html

Paraphrasing the question:

I am 16 and see a personal counselor. I told her I am in a relationship with a 29 year old man. She checked with her advisers and DCF to see if it was legal or not and said yes it is legal -- there's nothing anyone can do about it. Then a couple of months after that my counselor brought my mom in with us during a session to work on my relationship with her. My mom brought up her concerns of me possibly being with this man. I have always said to her I wasn't with him and he has told her the same. The next day tells me that it's illegal and she needs to tell the authorities. So, is it legal or not?

My answers:

The age of consent for sexual relations in Massachusetts is 16. I'll post more in a few minutes after searching to give you some citations.

Call me at 781-641-3472 if you would like a free, brief initial consultation about your rights.

The Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries have put together a great set of links on a page called "Massachusetts Law About Sex."

I suppose it could be argued that it might be "abuse" under DCF (formerly DSS)'s definition if the counselor had "reasonable cause to believe" that your relationship with this man "causes, or creates a substantial risk of physical or emotional injury," or if the man can be defined as a "caretaker" in relationship to you because "any sexual contact between a caretaker and a child under the care of that individual" also constitutes "abuse." I'll link the definition page below as well as the statutory link about what a counselor is "mandated" to "report."

On the other hand, a child in DCF custody is allowed to consent to her own "family planning services" which can include contraception. See §11.05 of the Medical Authorizations regulation linked below.

If the counselor is required to report under §51A, linked below, your right to privacy of your conversations with her is essentially voided. If she is wrong about her insistence on reporting and ignores your reasonable requests that she keep your confidences, you may have a claim against her.

DCF's Glossary regulation

Mandated reporting Law

DCF's Medical authorizations regulation

SJC strikes down Lowell youth curfew

SJC strikes down Lowell youth curfew - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

The case is COMMONWEALTH vs. WESTON W., a juvenile (and a companion case), SJC-10299, decided September 25, 2009.

Justice Cordy's decision noted:

We reject the rationale used by some courts to justify a lower standard of review, that the rights of minors are not coextensive with or are weaker than those afforded adults. Minors possess fully formed constitutional rights. See Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976) ( "Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority"). However, in applying the strict scrutiny test to their infringement, we recognize that the government has a countervailing compelling interest in "protect[ing] children from actual or potential harm," Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 656 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003), an interest that often justifies restrictions that could not be sustained when applied to the fundamental rights of adults. See Bellotti v. Baird, supra at 634 (constitutional principles should be applied with "flexibility" to minors because minors are vulnerable and unable to make decisions in "informed, mature manner"); Matter of Gail, 417 Mass. 321, 326-327 (1994), quoting Custody of a Minor, 375 Mass. 733, 754 (1978) (Commonwealth has "long-standing interest in protecting the welfare of children living within its borders"). In other words, the analysis "should consider whether the state's interests may be more compelling but not whether the rights involved are less fundamental." Nunez, supra at 945, citing H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 441 n. 32 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting). See also Qutb, supra at 492 n. 6.

And then concluded:

Applying the strict scrutiny standard, the ordinance's criminal provision unconstitutionally infringes on the minors' rights to freedom of movement. Status offenses such as being abroad at night may not be "bootstrapped" into criminal delinquency and commitment to DYS custody. See Commonwealth v. Florence F., supra at 528-529 n. 8. In response to the first reported question [Does the Lowell Youth Protection Curfew for Minors violate the equal protection rights of the Juveniles under either the United States Constitution or the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by subjecting the Juveniles to a restriction upon their rights to movement and travel that persons seventeen and older do not have to endure?], the answer is, "Yes," with regard to criminal penalties resulting from violations of the ordinance. The curfew itself and its civil enforcement mechanism, however, represent, as of the date of the proceedings below, a permissible, narrowly tailored response to Lowell's compelling interest in preventing crime by, and against, minors. Because the ordinance contains a severability clause, those provisions remain in force.