In United States
Citing a constitutional adjusting of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 2000, held that "the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." This includes parents' fundamental adjusting to defecate decisions concerning the care, custody, and advice of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645.
There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602. There is ordinarily no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the set to further impeach fit parents' ability to defecate the best decisions regarding their children, see, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 1923, the Supreme Court held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a domestic and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 1925, the Court again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." The Court explained in Pierce that "[t]he child is non the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and set up him for additional obligations." Id., at 535.
In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 1944, the Court again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside number one in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166. See also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 1972 "The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now establish beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"; Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 1978 "We have recognized on many occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"; Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 1979 "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization image of the kind as a constituent with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"; and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 1982 discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and administration of their child".
"In light of this extensive precedent," the Court said in Troxel, "it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."