Print Сite this

State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child

The central question for this court case was whether a person in a special relationship with minor children would be held responsible for them in proportion to the parent. This category included post facto reporting of a child’s physical or psychological problems resulting from care to the relevant services. It must be recognized that a special relationship involves the role of a stepfather or stepmother, as well as a professional or non-professional nanny.

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

This logic should apply to all people who have a special relationship with a minor child, including hired nannies. Anyone who assumes this role should be fully aware of the full responsibility that falls on their shoulders. In accepting this responsibility, the adult must ensure the child’s complete safety, both to prevent accidents and to deal with the consequences immediately after them. Thus, if accidents occur while working as a nanny with a baby, it is the responsibility of the employee — or stepfather, as in this case — to notify and inform parents, law enforcement, and medical services.

At first glance, this position may seem paradoxical, since neither the stepfather nor the stepmother, let alone a hired nanny, is the biological parent or legal guardian of the child. This means that the degree of their responsibility should not be comparable to that of the mother and father of a minor son or daughter. However, the case “State v. Miranda” (n.d.) illustrated the primacy of a special relationship over the official relationship between family members and the caregiver. Speaking otherwise, even underage nannies who are 14 or 15 years old are fully responsible for the safety of the child, although they may still be considered children themselves. Support for this thesis can be found in the description of this case, which states that voluntary performance of child care is tantamount to accepting responsibilities to protect, prevent, and inform (“State v. Miranda,” 2019). Ultimately, this means that controlling a child’s activity imposes a special obligation on the nanny, and if inaction becomes fatal, it must be punished.

Indeed, parents are responsible for their child’s moral upbringing, including education in ethics, culture, and religion. While cultural and ethical education raises fewer questions, the discussion of religious education is of great interest, especially in the context of atheistic parents. They are obliged not to pressure a baby to believe in a Christian, Buddhist, or Islamic God. On the contrary, the author believes that the task of parents is to provide a balanced and comprehensive religious education for the child. This effect stimulates an unlimited child’s worldview so that in the future, they will be able to choose which faith to accept or not to accept.

Nevertheless, this responsibility should not rest on the shoulders of biological parents alone, since every adult who systematically interacts with the child influences the child. Thus, such practice should be provided by grandparents, sisters and brothers, hired nannies, or family friends. Undoubtedly, this is not their absolute responsibility as enshrined in the family code or criminal law. Instead, this idea can be attributed to the category of citizens’ moral responsibilities, which implies the care and education of the younger generation. After all, adults have considerable responsibility for what the next generation will be like.

Although parents have the most significant responsibility for raising their children, they are not the only sources of life lessons, skills, and opinions. There is no guarantee that even in an adequate family, an uneducated and aggressive child cannot grow up: they could learn it on the street, in school, or in other environments. This means that it is not reasonable to blame parents for a son or daughter’s aggressiveness, as it is impossible to identify the specific source of influence. At the same time, parents’ significance in the context of a child’s development should not be diminished (Cabello et al., 2017). If a child has been subjected to verbal, physical, or sexual abuse, the adult should be held accountable.


Cabello, R., Gutiérrez-Cobo, M. J., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2017). Parental education and aggressive behavior in children: A moderated-mediation model for inhibitory control and gender. Frontiers In Psychology, 8(1181), 1-8. Web.

Get your
100% original paper
on any topic

done in as little as
3 hours
Learn More

State v. Miranda. (2019). Quimbee. Web.

State v. Miranda. (n.d.). FindLaw. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style


StudyCorgi. (2022, January 13). State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child. Retrieved from


StudyCorgi. (2022, January 13). State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child.

Work Cited

"State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child." StudyCorgi, 13 Jan. 2022,

1. StudyCorgi. "State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child." January 13, 2022.


StudyCorgi. "State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child." January 13, 2022.


StudyCorgi. 2022. "State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child." January 13, 2022.


StudyCorgi. (2022) 'State v. Miranda: Special Relationship With a Minor Child'. 13 January.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.