State v. Bailey
157 Ind. 324, 61 N.E. 730, 59 L.R.A. 435 (1901)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's natural right to the custody and control of their child is subordinate to the power of the State. A state law compelling parents to send their children to school for the welfare of the child and society is a constitutional exercise of that power and does not invade a parent's natural rights.
Facts:
- The State of Indiana had a compulsory education law requiring parents to send their children to school.
- The appellee, Bailey, was the parent of a child named Vory Bailey.
- Bailey neglected and refused to send his child, Vory Bailey, to school.
- This refusal was a violation of the state's compulsory education statute.
Procedural Posture:
- Bailey was charged upon affidavit before a justice of the peace with violating Indiana's compulsory education law.
- The justice of the peace found Bailey guilty and convicted him.
- Bailey (appellant) appealed the conviction to the circuit court.
- The circuit court sided with Bailey and quashed the affidavit, dismissing the charge.
- The State of Indiana (appellant) appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Indiana, with Bailey as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that requires parents to send their children to school unconstitutionally invade a parent's natural right to govern and control their own children?
Opinions:
Majority - Dowling, J.
No, a state law requiring parents to send their children to school does not unconstitutionally invade a parent's natural rights. The court reasoned that a parent's natural rights to the custody and control of their child are subordinate to the power of the state. The obligation to educate a child is a duty owed not only to the child but also to the commonwealth. If a parent neglects this duty, the state may coerce them by law, as the welfare of the child and the best interests of society require the state to exert its sovereign authority to ensure children have the opportunity to acquire an education. The court further held that determining the extent of this interference is a matter of legislative expediency, not judicial authority. The court also dismissed challenges to the law's title, finding it specific enough to indicate its subject matter as required by the state constitution.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the state's police power in the realm of public education, subordinating a parent's fundamental right to direct their child's upbringing to the state's compelling interest in an educated citizenry. The ruling provided strong precedent for the validity of compulsory education laws across the country and affirmed the principle that parental rights are not absolute. By deferring to the legislature on the 'expediency and propriety' of such laws, the court reinforced a limited role for the judiciary in reviewing policy decisions related to public welfare. The decision also affirms a practical, rather than hyper-technical, approach to interpreting constitutional requirements for legislative titles.
