No. Every business in the country is fearful of liability but that does not mean that it can run roughshod over a person’s legal rights.  By law, children are allowed to play outside. A landlord’s personal fear of liability does not qualify as a compelling reason that would allow him to refuse to let children play outside.   One court summed it up perfectly, when it ruled as follows: “Concerns that children will get hurt while playing outside, be it nicks, scratches, bumps or bruises, have been concerns dogging parents since the dawn of time.  Were such ever-present, generalized concerns deemed sufficient in and of themselves to justify outdoor use restrictions to an apartment complex, there would be little place left that such a rule would not be considered valid.   In short, the mantra of child safety cannot and is not sufficient to justify a restriction.”  This particular court recognized the fact that landlords would be able to completely control the lives of children if they could simply claim that they were worried about liability.

 

The reality is that some landlords simply don’t want children playing outside, so they come up with a vague justification for refusing to allow kids to play, namely, that playing isn’t allowed because they don’t want to get sued if the child gets hurt.  This is not a valid reason to refuse to let children play outside.  Your children are allowed to play outside.  The landlord cannot use fear of liability as an excuse to prevent your children from playing. Courts are concerned about actual, real danger, not possible dangers that can occur.  For example, there is clearly a risk if children are allowed to shoot bb guns, hit hard baseballs, or throw lawn darts in the common areas, as an injury could easily occur. Obviously, a landlord can prohibit such activities. However, there is no such risk if children toss sponge balls, blow bubbles, play hopscotch, or play badminton. There is no risk with these activities. A manager cannot prohibit kids from engaging in such activities.

No. If the rule is specifically aimed at teenagers (e.g. the rule says, “No teenagers may loiter on the premises”) then the rule is illegal. The landlord is required to treat teenagers equal to adults. A landlord cannot make rules that single-out teenagers. By the same token, the landlord cannot refuse to allow teenagers to visit an apartment, simply because he is worried about them “causing trouble.” Teenagers cannot be singled out. They must be treated equally as adults.

Equally important is the fact that a landlord cannot require teenagers to be supervised in common areas.  Multiple federal courts have found it illegal to have rules that would prohibit teenagers from being in the common areas unless they were supervised.  A landlord cannot require teenagers to be supervised while in common areas.

No. It is illegal to exclude children from the pool at anytime while the pool is open. A complex cannot set aside time for adults only. It is also illegal to exclude children from the Jacuzzi, unless the child is physically too young to sit in a Jacuzzi. The pool and Jacuzzi must be accessible to children during the same hours that it is accessible to adults. The law does not permit a landlord to make separate rules for children, no matter how convenient it might be to adults. A child can only be excluded if it would clearly be too dangerous for the child to use the facility. Likewise, although landlords may not want teenagers hanging out in the Jacuzzi, he cannot exclude them from such.

No. Your landlord will probably be surprised to learn that he cannot tell your children to quit playing inside of the apartment. Federal and state fair housing laws expressly require apartment dwellers to put up with normal, reasonable noise from children. This noise would clearly include noise made by children while playing in an apartment, provided that their conduct isn’t overtly unreasonable (e.g. jumping off their beds at 1 a.m., or playing the stereo on high late at night) . The manager cannot evict you if your kids have been making normal noises while playing inside your apartment, such as laughing, giggling, or rolling on the floor. To do so is illegal. The law does NOT make another tenant’s desire for peace and quiet paramount to your children’s right to play in their apartment. To the contrary, the law expressly states that a desire for peace and quiet is NOT grounds for making rules against children. Children make noise. That’s part of being a kid. The law requires landlords and tenants to put up with such noises. This would include allowing kids to play around inside their apartment at reasonable hours even if another tenant complains.

No. The law requires tenants to put up with reasonable noises made by children. The law expressly states that a desire for peace and quiet is NOT grounds for making rules against children.  One particular court ruled that a written apartment rule which stated "Children will not be allowed to play or run around inside the building area at any time because of disturbance to other tenants or damage to building property" violated fair housing laws.  Another court held that it was illegal for a landlord to exclude children from an apartment complex because the landlord felt that children were “rowdier, noisier, more mischievous and more boisterous than adults.”   Simply put, your landlord cannot refuse to allow children to play outside simply because they will make noise.

A frequent problem that occurs is that some tenants will constantly complain to management about the noise that children make while playing outside.  In other words, they want the complex to be quiet.  The manager might feel compelled to listen to these complaining tenants, and tell parents to either keep their kids inside, or only allow them to play if they are quiet.  This is illegal.  Children have the right to run, play, laugh, and make noise. A landlord cannot insist upon a quiet complex. Children make noise. That’s part of being a kid. The law requires landlords and tenants to put up with such noises. It is illegal to attempt to silence children so that others will not have to deal with their noise. Any rule that attempts to do so is illegal and unenforceable. As such, a landlord cannot prohibit children from playing hopscotch, Hot Wheels, Barbies or dolls, hand held video games, reading books, tossing soft balls, playing tag, or any other harmless game.

Another problem that occurs is that a landlord will tell children to go back insider their apartments if they are being too loud. This is illegal for a few reasons.  First, a landlord cannot order a child to go back inside their unit under any circumstances.  This is true even if the child was out of control or making extremely loud noises.  A child has the right not to have someone exercise control over their person. While there is nothing inappropriate about a landlord asking a child to calm down, she cannot order a child to go back inside their unit. Second, children are allowed to make normal noise while playing.  As such,  a landlord cannot stop this noise even if it is annoying to them.  Just so long as the children aren’t being extremely loud, they are free to make normal noise while playing.

Yet another problem that occurs is that a landlord will declare that she does not want children playing outside because there are tenants who work nights and sleep during the day.  This is not justification that would allow a landlord to refuse to let children play outside.  Children are free to play outside even though some tenants may sleep during the day.

Yes and no. Generally speaking, a landlord cannot prohibit activities of children unless there is a compelling need to do so and the rule is not too invasive. It is not unusual for an apartment complex to post rules that state that skateboards, bicycles, and scooters are not allowed. Usually, these rules are enacted to put an end to annoying kids. This isn’t a legal reason for such rules. As noted in other parts of this website, the desire for peace and quiet is not grounds for prohibiting children from playing. Rather, the landlord can only prohibit activity if the landlord can show that there is a serious threat of injury if the activity is permitted to continue. Moreover, even if the possibility of injury can be shown, the rule cannot go too far. For example, if the complex has a narrow sidewalk and children have crashed their bicycles into other tenants, then it may be okay to prohibit bike riding. However, the rule would go too far if it also prohibited toddler bicycles or push cars, as nobody is reasonably going to get “run over” by a toddler bike or push car.

The same thing would apply to an apartment rule that prohibits throwing footballs, baseballs, or any other device. If there is a true danger present, then it can be prohibited. However, if there is no real danger, then it cannot be prohibited. For example, it would be okay to prohibit throwing hard baseballs, as a baseball could cause injury to person or property. However, it would be inappropriate to prohibit a nerf football, a sponge ball, or any other safe throwing device.

Some landlords will use any excuse to prevent children from playing.  One such excuse is that they are afraid that children will break sprinklers.  This is not a legal justification for refusing to allow children to play outside.   This is just a fake reason to keep children from playing outside.  Children are free to play on lawns.  If a sprinkler is broken, a landlord is free to bill the parent the cost of replacement, but they cannot use this as an excuse to prevent all children from playing on lawns.

By the same token, a landlord cannot claim that playing is not allowed because they are afraid that children will trip over a sprinkler and get hurt.  This is not a legal justification for refusing to allow children to play on lawns or outside.  One court summed it up perfectly, when it ruled as follows: “Concerns that children will get hurt while playing outside, be it nicks, scratches, bumps or bruises, have been concerns dogging parents since the dawn of time.  Were such ever-present, generalized concerns deemed sufficient in and of themselves to justify outdoor use restrictions to an apartment complex, there would be little place left that such a rule would not be considered valid. In short, the mantra of child safety cannot and is not sufficient to justify a restriction.”  This particular court recognized the fact that landlords would be able to completely control the lives of children if they could simply claim that they were worried about liability.

No.   A landlord cannot force a woman to move out simply because she is pregnant, nor can families be evicted because their baby cries.  Fair housing laws recognize that three people can share a one-bedroom apartment.  Any remaining bedrooms can have up to two people in each bedroom.  If the addition of a new baby will not exceed the occupancy limits, then it is illegal for a landlord to require a tenant who has a baby to move out.

In addition, a landlord cannot force a family with a new baby to move out because the landlord is worried that a crying baby will upset neighbors.  Neighbors are required to put up with the sounds of crying babies.  Federal law protects families of newborn babies.  If a landlord threatens to evict a family because their baby cries too much, or cries at odd hours, then the landlord has violated fair housing laws.  Babies are allowed to cry at any hour and a landlord is required to put up with it.