Court: Parental contracts can’t include jail threat

BOISE – Parents of troubled juveniles can’t be forced by the courts to sign so-called “parental contracts” under the threat of jail time, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled.

The unanimous ruling on Friday reversed a decision by Canyon County Magistrate Judge Frank Kotyk in the case of Tyler Watkins and his father, Scott Watkins.

Tyler, a juvenile, admitted to charges of unlawful entry, disturbing the peace, curfew violation and being under the influence of a controlled substance, according to the high court’s ruling. As part of Tyler’s probation agreement, the court asked his father, Scott Watkins, to sign a “parental contract” agreeing to certain conditions including random drug testing for the father. The contract also included a $1,000 fine if Scott Watkins violated any of the provisions.

But Scott Watkins refused to sign the contract, saying the drug testing requirement would breach his privacy.

Kotyk agreed to have a hearing on the matter, and at the hearing told Watkins he could either sign the contract or be jailed until he changed his mind. Faced with that possibility, Watkins signed the contract and was immediately ordered to submit to a drug test. When Watkins refused the drug test, he was sentenced to five days in jail. All but one day of his sentence was deferred, pending his appeal.

Though the use of a parental contract is allowed under Idaho law, the threat of jail made the contract invalid, the high court found.

“While one may be compelled to perform the conditions of a valid contract, compulsion to enter a contract under the threat of jail is not within the contemplation of contract law,” Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder wrote for the court. “It must be assumed that the Legislature understood the concept of voluntary commitment to an agreement when it used the term ‘contract.’ “

Still, Idaho law states that courts can compel a parent to sign a parental agreement as a condition of a child’s probation.

“Not all parents are likely to voluntarily enter into contracts that may subject them to losses of personal privacy and the sanctions of (Idaho law),” Schroeder wrote. “The Legislature was doubtless cognizant of that reality and equipped the courts dealing with juvenile offenders with authority (in the law) that is not based on consent.”