Sutherland Maintains Parents Safe From Prosecutions After Stayout

Parents whose children participate in the planned Feb. 26 Boston School Stayout could not be prosecuted under the truancy laws, Arthur E. Sutherland. Sutherland, Bussey Professor of Law, said yesterday. He added, however that leaders of the Stayout might be held criminally liable.

Many parents had reportedly been frightened by Attorney General Edward W. Brooke's statement Monday that the Stayout--planned as a protest against alleged de facto segregation--would be "unlawful."

Section One of chapter 76 of the general laws of Massachusetts specifies that children seven to 16 years old must attend school.

Several legitimate reasons for absence are specified. Students may also be excused for "necessary causes," but the school committee is role judge of which causes are necessary.

Section Two stipulates that parents are responsible for keeping their children in school, and that if they allow them to be unlawfully absent more than seven days in any six month period, they may be fined up to $20.

Sutherland pointed out, that the duty of the parents is "absolute." It is, as Brooke said, "unlawful" for them to keep their children out of school for even one day without necessary cause. But they cannot be held criminally liable unless he number of days exceeds seven.

Section Four Crucial

More crucial is the interpretation of Section Four, which specifies that "Whoever induces or attempts to induce a minor to absent himself unlawfully," or "harbors a minor, who, while school is in session, is unlawfully absent," shall be fined up to $50.

This might mean that the leader of the Stayout, and the teachers in the "freedom Schools" the children will attend, could be held criminally liable, according to Sutherland. He doubted, however, that parents would be held liable under this section. Brooke also indicated that this section would probably not be interpreted to include the parents of the absent, children.

Sutherland explained, however, that because there have been no decisions on Section Four it is impossible to predict how a court would rule.