The intent was to explore a difficult problem associated with extension of Miranda rights: juveniles' competence to make decisions regarding the waiver or assertion of their rights. Moreover, the assumption that parents can provide adequate protection for juveniles has been challenged. For this study, 753 parents who attended parent-teacher meetings at a high school in the Midwest were asked to complete a research questionnaire. The parents were mostly middle-class. The questionnaire included requests for demographic information; 30 items derived from the Children's Rights Attitudes Scale and questions on a hypothetical situation involving the arrest of a juvenile. Results of a two-way analysis of variance from test scores suggested that parents favored a juvenile's right to nurturant legal protections, but they were less benevolent in the case of juveniles with prior adjudicated offenses. Parents did not favor extending self-determination rights to juveniles. When interpreted, the results suggest that parents generally believe that the legal system should provide juveniles most of the rights and due process protections (including the right to silence and legal counsel) which juveniles might require in legal proceedings. On the other hand, they felt that parents, not the juveniles themselves, should decide whether or not juveniles will avail themselves of these rights when a choice must be made. Results of the study thus cast doubt on parents' abilities to provide meaningful protection for juveniles in interrogation. Tables, notes, seven references, and a list of court cases are provided.