'In loco parentis' is a Latin phrase meaning 'in the place of a parent'. It refers to anyone who is standing as a parent for a minor, and assuming the responsibilities of the parent. It may arise if the child's parents are absent, or they have authorized another person to act on their behalf in their absence. The child does not need to be legally adopted by a person for this relationship to apply. The adult assuming the responsibility of the child must act with such due diligence as the parent/s would, and must prevent any harm to the child insofar as is reasonably possible. If anything happens to the child, and it was a situation that the adult could not have foreseen or controlled in any way, then he/she must give sufficient reason regarding the same. However, if it is found that the child was harmed due to negligence on the part of the adult, then such an adult standing 'in loco parentis' will have to face the legal consequences for the same. The following paragraphs provide an in-depth explanation of this term, accompanied by a few examples. The case In 1977, James Ingraham (14) of Charles R Drew Junior High, a Florida public school, was accused by a teacher of not following her instructions, and sent to the principal, Willie J Wright Jr. Ingraham was asked to bend over by the principal, to be spanked with a paddle, but he refused. He was then forcefully bent over and restrained by the vice-principal and another school official, after which he was paddled numerous times. The beating caused him to suffer a serious hematoma. He and his parents sued the school on the grounds of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. The verdict The Supreme Court upheld that corporal punishment meted out by public schools did not come under 'cruel and unusual punishment' in the Constitution. It also stated that corporal punishment did not require providing any prior notice to the student. The ruling was made in favor of the school. The case Five school children, John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, Mary Beth Tinker, Hope Tinker, and Paul Tinker, decided to wear black armbands to school to show their protest against the Vietnam war. When the school officials found out about it, they immediately effected a rule prohibiting students from wearing such bands on campus. When the five came to school wearing the bands, they were promptly suspended, and reinstated a day after their protest was scheduled to end. The verdict The Supreme Court ruled that students did not 'give up their constitutional rights when they entered the school grounds', and preventing them from wearing black armbands on campus was a violation of these rights. The ruling was made in the favor of the children. It is now clear that in loco parentis in high schools and colleges is an issue of much debate. There will always be pros and cons to it, and situations that are for and against it will never cease to arise. The term 'in loco parentis' has a very wide net, and it is never possible to cover it or define it completely. One thing is for sure though; a child who has people willing to stand in for his/her parents in their absence, is a dear and loved child indeed.