Tapping kids’ calls OK
Listen up, kids. Big Brother can’t tap your phones, but mom and dad can.
So said the state Court of Appeals in a legally groundbreaking opinion that uses a Knox County custody battle as the backdrop.
“The parties agree that this is an issue of first impression in Tennessee,” Appellate Judge Charles D. Susano Jr., wrote in a recently released opinion.
Since 1994, it has been a crime in the state of Tennessee to secretly record or eavesdrop on a phone call between two unsuspecting speakers.
That made tapping a cheating spouse’s phone, for instance, to garner proof of a liaison a legal no-no, punishable by both jail time and civil damages.
But what if mom secretly records a chat between dad and daughter and then uses it in a custody fight? Do children have a right to telephonic privacy?
Until now, the issue had never been tested. Enter Knox County parents Chris Lawrence and Leigh Ann Lawrence and their toddler daughter, then 30-months-old.
While father and daughter chatted on the phone in the spring of 2007, Leigh Ann Lawrence held up a tape recorder to a phone in another room and recorded the conversation. She later insisted she wasn’t trying to hide the taping from her daughter – just the recorder itself because the toddler “would have wanted to sing into the tape recorder or play with it,” the opinion noted.
Leigh Ann Lawrence then gave a copy of the tape to a psychologist who was conducting a custody evaluation as part of the Lawrences’ divorce case in Knox County Circuit Court, according to the opinion.
When Chris Lawrence found out about the tape, he sued under Tennessee’s wiretapping law.
His attorney, Andrew Fox, argued Leigh Ann Lawrence clearly violated the law because neither her daughter nor her estranged husband “consented” to the recording. Her lawyer, Deno Cole, countered that a parent doesn’t need a child’s permission to monitor or record the calls of his or her offspring.
The law itself is silent on the issue, so Circuit Judge Dale Workman plowed new legal ground when he ruled that the wiretapping law did not apply to children secretly recorded by parents. Chris Lawrence appealed.
Had Workman plowed too deep? Not according to the appellate court.
“A parent has a right to childrearing autonomy unless and until a showing is made of a substantial danger of harm to the child,” Susano wrote. “It is readily apparent to us that childrearing autonomy encompasses control of a 2 1/2-year-old child’s access to the telephone.
“The pertinent question in this case is whether the Legislature intended to subject a parent to criminal penalties and money damages for eavesdropping, from another telephone, on a 2 1/2-year-old child’s telephone conversation without the child’s knowledge,” he continued. “We do not believe the Legislature intended to invade the parent-child relationship (with the wiretapping law).”
Teenagers, take heart, however.
The court opined that a case involving a toddler was a bit of a no-brainer when deciding the level of a parent’s control over the phone. It left open the possibility of further legal debate should the wiretapping involve an older child.
“We are not, by this opinion, painting a bright line as to age,” Susano noted. “Since 2 1/2 is obviously an age at which a child is too young to give consent, we see no need to determine a bright line rule in this case.”
Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308. Follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/jamiescoop.
By on 11/12/2010