Requests the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the feasibility of requiring the consent of both parents of a child to track that child by GPS.
The potential impact of SCR8 hinges on its ability to alter existing legislation that currently permits one parent to monitor a child's location without needing the other parent's permission. The resolution seeks to ensure that any revisions to the law do not infringe upon the rights of parents with sole custody or complicate the legal authority of parents with joint custody. By requiring consent from both parents, the resolution aims to bolster the dialogue about parental rights and child privacy within the family law framework.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 (SCR8) urges the Louisiana State Law Institute to study the feasibility of requiring both parents' consent to track a child using a tracking device, including GPS technology. The resolution is motivated by current state laws that allow a parent or legal guardian to track their minor child without requiring consent from the other parent, which could potentially extend tracking to the adult parent accompanying the child. This issue brings to light concerns about privacy and parental rights in the context of technology's influence on family dynamics.
The sentiment surrounding SCR8 appears to be cautiously optimistic among advocates for child privacy, who view the study as a much-needed examination of the implications of current laws on parental authority and child autonomy. There is an acknowledgment that while technology can offer safety, it also raises ethical questions regarding consent and control over a child’s movements. However, some may see the request for the study as an unnecessary bureaucratic step that could complicate existing parenting arrangements, especially in custody cases.
Notable points of contention regarding SCR8 revolve around the balance between parental rights and child privacy. Proponents argue that requiring consent from both parents ensures a more equitable approach to tracking children, which is important in protecting a child's autonomy. Critics might assert that such a requirement could hinder the ability of one parent—especially those with sole custody—to use technology for the safety and monitoring of their children, potentially leading to delayed responses in emergency situations.