Upon similar principles the parent may recover damages for the seduction of an infant daughter. Indeed, by the early law, as well as in some States at the present time, the parent's right to recover for the seduction was based solely upon his right to recover for the loss of his daughter's services. The courts of some States, however, have departed from this rule and permit a re covery, even though the parent has emancipated his daughter and is, therefore, not entitled to her services. See SEDUCTION.
As regards the maintenance of the child, it is somewhat singular that according to the common law- the parent is under no civil legal duty what ever to support the child. This defect in the law- was remedied somewhat when what is known as the 'Poor Law' was enacted by Parliament in the reign of Elizabeth by which some legal duty was imposed upon parents and children to sup port each other when financially able to do so, or rather to assist the parish authorities in con tributing to their support.
This act authorized the parish authorities to enforce the law by appropriate proceedings, and even authorized them to procure a judicial seiz ure of the parents' property for the use of their children in case of abandonment of the children by the parents. But it did not create obligations such that one who supplies a destitute child with food and clothing has any legal claim against the parent. Similar statutes have been enacted in most of the United States, and in a few States the courts have indicated that the duty of a parent to maintain his child thus created may also be enforced by third persons by an action in the nature of quasi contract.
While the parent. is not civilly liable to main
tain his child, he is criminally responsible if, having undertaken to care for his child, he neglects it and, by exposure or failure to provide it with food or clothing. causes the child's injury or death. Parents have been held guilty of man slaughter and even murder when death resulted from negligent or improper care of. their children. The English courts have held that a parent who in good faith neglects to provide medical attend ance for his child because he did not believe in the use of medicine was not criminally responsi ble for his neglect. The rule of this decision was promptly corrected by an act of Parliament. and it is probably generally the law in the United States that a parent guilty of gross neglect in not providing proper medical attendance for his child is criminally responsible.
At common law a parent is nut liable for the torts of his child unless their commission is incited or authorized by the parent, in which ease the rules for determining his liability are the same as in the law of agency or master and servant.
At common law the child is an heir of the parent (see DESCENT) and is also entitled to a share of the parent's estate under the various statutes of distribution (q.v.). This interest of the child in the parent's property may. however. be defeated by the parent's will, which may dis pose of all his property to strangers. In several States it is provided by statute that children of a testator born after the execution c.f his will and of whom no mention is made in the will shall take the same share in the parent's property which he would have secured had the parent died intestate.