A court issued a restraining order preventing the parents of an eight-year-old girl from smoking in the child’s presence. The court initiated the order, it was not requested by one of the parents. Additionally, the court noted that the child was healthy and did not have any respiratory problems. The court conducted an exhaustive review of the dangers of secondhand smoke and found that children are especially susceptible to diseases caused by secondhand smoke and that secondhand smoke is a danger to all children, regardless of their health. The court found that the “best interests of the child” standard imposes a mandatory duty upon family courts to consider the danger of secondhand smoke to all children within their care in determining matters of visitation and custody.
In re Julie Anne, 121 Ohio Misc.2d 2002-Ohio-4489 (2002).
United States
Oct 15, 2002
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Juvenile Division, Lake County
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke.
(See FCTC Art. 8)
Substantive Issues
None
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"A considered analysis of the law including the parens patriae (the state as parent) doctrine, the Ohio “best interests of the child” statute, and United States Supreme Court case law; as well as a considered analysis of the facts including the irrefutable judicially noticed authoritative scientific evidence demonstrating that secondhand smoke constitutes a real and substantial danger to the health of children because it causes and aggravates serious diseases in children, leads to the inescapable conclusion that a family court that fails to issue court orders restraining persons from smoking in the presence of children within its care is failing the children whom the law has entrusted to its care."
"Additionally, constitutional challenges (i.e., due process, equal protection, and freedom of expression) by smoking prison inmates attempting to strike down smoking restrictions are uniformly held to be without merit upon the basis that smoking is not a fundamental right and secondhand smoke can not be imposed involuntarily upon other people because it is detrimental to their health. Smoking restrictions automatically protect prison inmates across America from the real and present danger of being compelled to breathe secondhand smoke in places where they live. Are not the children of America, who can neither choose where they live nor speak for themselves, entitled to the same protection afforded to prison inmates under the law?"
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A court issued a restraining order preventing the parents of an eight-year-old girl from smoking in the child’s presence. The court initiated the order, it was not requested by one of the parents. Additionally, the court noted that the child was healthy and did not have any respiratory problems. The court conducted an exhaustive review of the dangers of secondhand smoke and found that children are especially susceptible to diseases caused by secondhand smoke and that secondhand smoke is a danger to all children, regardless of their health. The court found that the “best interests of the child” standard imposes a mandatory duty upon family courts to consider the danger of secondhand smoke to all children within their care in determining matters of visitation and custody.