Legal issues with minors joining a community choir?
July 22, 2011 10:15 AM Subscribe
What protection does a non-profit need before accepting minors as members?
I'm in a community LGBT choir where membership to date has consisted of adults aged 18 and older. Recently, a teenage minor asked about joining our group. In looking at our by-laws, we confirmed that we include a discrimination clause that lists age as well as sex, gender, presentation, etc.
Many of us have concerns about accepting minors, particularly in regards to our responsibilities and liabilities. We ask that all members sign a form indicating they received and understood the expectations of a member. Would requiring this of a minor mean that we need a parent or guardian signature also?
While waivers don't necessarily protect against negligence, perhaps a waiver that indicates that we aren't responsible for the safety of minors (any more than we would be for an adult) is in order?
Like most non-profits, we don't make much money and we don't have much to spend on insurance.
I happily acknowledge that advice received isn't legally binding in any way, just hoping for some guidance or personal experience.
I'm in a community LGBT choir where membership to date has consisted of adults aged 18 and older. Recently, a teenage minor asked about joining our group. In looking at our by-laws, we confirmed that we include a discrimination clause that lists age as well as sex, gender, presentation, etc.
Many of us have concerns about accepting minors, particularly in regards to our responsibilities and liabilities. We ask that all members sign a form indicating they received and understood the expectations of a member. Would requiring this of a minor mean that we need a parent or guardian signature also?
While waivers don't necessarily protect against negligence, perhaps a waiver that indicates that we aren't responsible for the safety of minors (any more than we would be for an adult) is in order?
Like most non-profits, we don't make much money and we don't have much to spend on insurance.
I happily acknowledge that advice received isn't legally binding in any way, just hoping for some guidance or personal experience.
Check with the provider of your liability insurance, or, if your organization doesn't have liability insurance, with the providers of the personal liability insurance of the officers of the organization. They probably have waiver language for this.
posted by straw at 10:45 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by straw at 10:45 AM on July 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
There is a reason most volunteer organizations, whether straight/lgbt, separate minors from adults. No matter what waivers you have there is an assumed vulnerability, and liability, for minors. While IANAL I would not mix the two age groups unless there is active and direct parental involvement in the group. I imagine one would be hard pressed to identify many formal groups that have active involvement by minors and adults unless the parents of the minors are co-participants. If you have liability insurance discuss this with your insurance carrier and make sure you understand the types of liability covered. If you do not have liability insurance do not do it. Famous last words--trust me--there are few things less predict.able that the behavior of teenagers.
posted by rmhsinc at 11:03 AM on July 22, 2011
posted by rmhsinc at 11:03 AM on July 22, 2011
You should call the nonprofits who do gay youth services, surely, and ask about how they handle this.
(I also think it's great that the group is (sort of!) open to including minors; that kind of inclusion meant a lot to me at that age!)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:09 AM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
(I also think it's great that the group is (sort of!) open to including minors; that kind of inclusion meant a lot to me at that age!)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:09 AM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I am a lawyer, and while the signature of a minor isn't worthless, it's certainly not something you're going to want to bank on. The minor can decide to abide by his contracts, but can also decide not to. This is why commercial institutions generally require the signature of an adult where kids are involved.
Exactly how this works out in your state is something you're going to want to as a local attorney about, because the age cut-off and exact nature of the effect of a minor's incapacity does vary somewhat from state to state.
Also, and this is just speaking more generally, waivers aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The courts almost uniformly refuse to restrict anyone's right to sue, agreements to the contrary be damned. Indemnification, on the other hand, i.e. agreeing to assume financial responsibility, does generally work, but again, you're going to need an adult's signature.
The way this works out is that you cannot generally avoid your legal duties by having people sign a paper to that effect. But you can get people to agree to be responsible for consequences. This is significant, because most policies of insurance permit the policyholder to enter into indemnification agreements. The way this works out in practice is that a plaintiff sues an organization, but the organization turns right around with a cross-claim based on the indemnification agreement. Now that the plaintiff is himself getting sued, he makes a claim against his own liability insurance, giving access to resources that would not otherwise have been there. Again, you're going to need the signature of the person with custody over the minor for any of this to work, but it's how savvier organizations do risk management.
posted by valkyryn at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2011
Exactly how this works out in your state is something you're going to want to as a local attorney about, because the age cut-off and exact nature of the effect of a minor's incapacity does vary somewhat from state to state.
Also, and this is just speaking more generally, waivers aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The courts almost uniformly refuse to restrict anyone's right to sue, agreements to the contrary be damned. Indemnification, on the other hand, i.e. agreeing to assume financial responsibility, does generally work, but again, you're going to need an adult's signature.
The way this works out is that you cannot generally avoid your legal duties by having people sign a paper to that effect. But you can get people to agree to be responsible for consequences. This is significant, because most policies of insurance permit the policyholder to enter into indemnification agreements. The way this works out in practice is that a plaintiff sues an organization, but the organization turns right around with a cross-claim based on the indemnification agreement. Now that the plaintiff is himself getting sued, he makes a claim against his own liability insurance, giving access to resources that would not otherwise have been there. Again, you're going to need the signature of the person with custody over the minor for any of this to work, but it's how savvier organizations do risk management.
posted by valkyryn at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2011
While IANAL I would not mix the two age groups unless there is active and direct parental involvement in the group. I imagine one would be hard pressed to identify many formal groups that have active involvement by minors and adults unless the parents of the minors are co-participants.
I belong to an NPO where this is a hot topic. I don't have examples at hand, but I strongly dispute the truth of the statement above. There are tons of small community choirs, orchestras, dance organizations, and arts organizations in general who combine adult and minor members.
I'm wondering what your concerns are, specifically? The possibility of exposure to allegations of sexual misconduct? Misbehavior by the teen?
If it's the former, one easy way to mitigate risk is simply to adopt a formal policy of two-deep supervision (ie: two unrelated adults are in the room with a minor at all times, no minor is ever left alone with an adult). If it's the later, I'd think simply sitting with the minor and his/her parents and talking about expectations and having the parents sign along with the minor would solve the problem.
It would be helpful if you can more clearly articulate what your concerns are.
posted by anastasiav at 12:32 PM on July 22, 2011
I belong to an NPO where this is a hot topic. I don't have examples at hand, but I strongly dispute the truth of the statement above. There are tons of small community choirs, orchestras, dance organizations, and arts organizations in general who combine adult and minor members.
I'm wondering what your concerns are, specifically? The possibility of exposure to allegations of sexual misconduct? Misbehavior by the teen?
If it's the former, one easy way to mitigate risk is simply to adopt a formal policy of two-deep supervision (ie: two unrelated adults are in the room with a minor at all times, no minor is ever left alone with an adult). If it's the later, I'd think simply sitting with the minor and his/her parents and talking about expectations and having the parents sign along with the minor would solve the problem.
It would be helpful if you can more clearly articulate what your concerns are.
posted by anastasiav at 12:32 PM on July 22, 2011
@anastasia--It is not a sexual thing at all--no more than if it was all straight, mixed, etc. I am not aware of that many NPO's that mix adults and minors in structured programming--especially if it is an incorporated body and not just a voluntary informal association. To the best of my knowledge most formal social clubs/organizations have separate programing for adults and youth--churches, fraternal organizations, orchestras, community choirs, theaters (in our community), athletic associations, etc. The specific concerns include the notion that if minors are involved the adults will provide appropriate supervision and safety (think road trip, canoe trip, camping trip etc), securing parental permission for off site activities, etc. Once there are minors involved it is no longer a peer activity with full notions of partnership and collegiality but rather adult/child/supervised. There is always the possibility of misbehavior but that is not the over riding issue except misbehavior in a supervised setting has more potential liability for an organization than two adolescents misbehaving in a spontaneous way on their own. I am sure there are numerous activities that mix young adults--but the writer queried regarding liability. Finally, if youth are to be mixed it takes diligence on the part of the organization to secure necessary indemnification and assume a responsibility for safety and security--does the organization want to do this?
posted by rmhsinc at 1:19 PM on July 22, 2011
posted by rmhsinc at 1:19 PM on July 22, 2011
@anastasia--It is not a sexual thing at all--no more than if it was all straight, mixed, etc.
Totally. I used to work with a youth group, as an adult. Teen got upset and ran out of the premises; we couldn't catch him. Wound up calling the cops, mostly as a CYA measure. But how do you tell angry parents "Um yeah, we sort of... don't have your kid here anymore." Especially if the location maybe isn't in the best part of town? It could be anything, what if the minor injures himself, or is mugged coming to/going from the premises?
posted by xedrik at 1:41 PM on July 22, 2011
Totally. I used to work with a youth group, as an adult. Teen got upset and ran out of the premises; we couldn't catch him. Wound up calling the cops, mostly as a CYA measure. But how do you tell angry parents "Um yeah, we sort of... don't have your kid here anymore." Especially if the location maybe isn't in the best part of town? It could be anything, what if the minor injures himself, or is mugged coming to/going from the premises?
posted by xedrik at 1:41 PM on July 22, 2011
I am sure there are numerous activities that mix young adults--but the writer queried regarding liability. Finally, if youth are to be mixed it takes diligence on the part of the organization to secure necessary indemnification and assume a responsibility for safety and security--does the organization want to do this?
I sit on the board of an NPO and am well aware of all of this. Your assertion that few NPOs mix ages in this way does not jive with our experience and research (specifically around arts organizations) but I don't have the folder with me at work to provide any cites. Certainly, there are tons of groups that are youth oriented (or adult oriented) as part of their mission but that is a different thing.
I don't disagree that talking with their insurer is a good step, but they also need to be clear on what their own objections are, because information from their insurer may not really alleviate the resistance if it's based more on fear of some cultural change in the organization. For many, many organizations, resistance to change of this type end up rooted in one of two things: a) cultural ("We don't want kids in our club. It would change us.") or b) fear of accusations of sexual misconduct. Neither of those are good reasons to exclude someone based on age alone.
Also, the age of the kid in question is very pertinent here.
The example of a youth group doesn't really apply here, because the expectations of parents w/r/t a group that is specifically a youth organization is slightly different than a volunteer community organization.
Anyhow, my point is that "Many of us have concerns about accepting minors, particularly in regards to our responsibilities and liabilities." should be clarified in their own minds, before they take any additional steps.
posted by anastasiav at 2:24 PM on July 22, 2011
I sit on the board of an NPO and am well aware of all of this. Your assertion that few NPOs mix ages in this way does not jive with our experience and research (specifically around arts organizations) but I don't have the folder with me at work to provide any cites. Certainly, there are tons of groups that are youth oriented (or adult oriented) as part of their mission but that is a different thing.
I don't disagree that talking with their insurer is a good step, but they also need to be clear on what their own objections are, because information from their insurer may not really alleviate the resistance if it's based more on fear of some cultural change in the organization. For many, many organizations, resistance to change of this type end up rooted in one of two things: a) cultural ("We don't want kids in our club. It would change us.") or b) fear of accusations of sexual misconduct. Neither of those are good reasons to exclude someone based on age alone.
Also, the age of the kid in question is very pertinent here.
The example of a youth group doesn't really apply here, because the expectations of parents w/r/t a group that is specifically a youth organization is slightly different than a volunteer community organization.
Anyhow, my point is that "Many of us have concerns about accepting minors, particularly in regards to our responsibilities and liabilities." should be clarified in their own minds, before they take any additional steps.
posted by anastasiav at 2:24 PM on July 22, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks all for your answers! Most of the concerns do have to do with the actual physical safety of any minors while participating in our group (the example of someone running off during a meeting, given above, is probably along the lines we're thinking). I suppose there's no harm in discussing potential for sexual misconduct, but really it's more that if a kid breaks her/his arm because of horseplay or whatever during rehearsals I'm thinking we'll get calls from parents asking why we weren't watching them more closely. Our thoughts are that we can't really control the minors who volunteer to participate any more than we could control an adult, but that wouldn't necessarily stop a parent from taking us to court.
I guess we're wondering if we would be *more* legally responsible for the safety of a 16 year old than we would be for a 46 year old.
posted by custardfairy at 4:22 PM on July 27, 2011
I guess we're wondering if we would be *more* legally responsible for the safety of a 16 year old than we would be for a 46 year old.
posted by custardfairy at 4:22 PM on July 27, 2011
Yes, sure, you betcha and IANAL but I will go ahead and render an opinion. Think how colleges versus high schools operate, teens versus adult peers having a party at your house, choir of adolescents versus adults on a multiple city trip. I do believe there is an operational assumption that when an adult enters into a voluntary, and certainly involuntary, relationship with a minor that there is a duty to protect. Whether this is explicitly embedded in law for voluntary relationships, one would have to ask an attorney. I know it certainly is in involuntary relationships. Regardless, it certainly is embedded in the consciousness of most of us which is where litigation begins. The mere fact that you are raising the question illustrates the point. I have a much different expectation if you take my wife to a choir celebration and she decides to come home later/earlier with a friend than if you take my 16 year old daughter to the same event. Good luck in moving ahead with a decision in which you feel comfortable.
posted by rmhsinc at 6:08 PM on July 27, 2011
posted by rmhsinc at 6:08 PM on July 27, 2011
I guess we're wondering if we would be *more* legally responsible for the safety of a 16 year old than we would be for a 46 year old.
Again, I'm a lawyer, and while this isn't really a forum to give legal advice, I think this one's a gimme.
You will absolutely be held more responsible for supervising a minor than you will an adult if both are participating in the same activity.
posted by valkyryn at 5:28 AM on July 28, 2011
Again, I'm a lawyer, and while this isn't really a forum to give legal advice, I think this one's a gimme.
You will absolutely be held more responsible for supervising a minor than you will an adult if both are participating in the same activity.
posted by valkyryn at 5:28 AM on July 28, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
A minor's signature is worthless. I'd amend the form with a line for something like "Parent or Guardian's signature (if under 18)."
posted by Sys Rq at 10:39 AM on July 22, 2011 [2 favorites]