Citation

Shedlosky EC. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 2008; 98(1): 299-327.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Northwestern University School of Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized family integrity to be a fundamental liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Court has recognized that implicit to the family integrity interest is the right to self-determine one's own family life, and in the case of parents, to manage the upbringing of children. However, as child protection has become a more prominent public concern, the state's escalating interest in ensuring the well-being of children has permitted it to intervene in areas historically addressed exclusively within the walls of the family home. This Comment argues that the state's interest in the well-being of children extends both to protecting a child's physical health and to protecting the less tangible considerations of a child's well-being, such as emotional welfare, psychological development, and ability to flourish as a member of society. This Comment further argues that by imposing criminal liability, rather than civil remedies, in situations where an adult places a child's physical, psychological, or emotional well-being at risk, the state will further two important initiatives. First, it will encourage a shift in the public's perception of the state's role in protecting children, and second, it will permit the state to better protect children from the harmful behavior of adults.