is protecting the child’s interest in the parent-child relationship”). A majority of the courts considering a child’s claim for loss of parental consortium rejects such a cause of action. A substantial minority, however, recognizes the claim. We reviewed the arguments on both sides and find the arguments favoring the cause of action more persuasive. 2. Importance of Children’s Rights and Inconsistency of Present State of the Law One of our reasons for recognizing this cause of action is society’s increased recognition and awareness of children as persons with rights. For example, the United States Supreme Court recognizes children’s due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution. E.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535, 93 S.Ct. 872,
holding informal process is sufficient because medicaid providers are not entitled  under constitutional due process standards to a full administrative hearing prior to termination of their provider agreement holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that where a high school student and the students mother received adequate notice of the charges had sufficient opportunity to prepare for the meeting with school personnel were accorded an orderly hearing and were given a fair and impartial decision no due process violation occurred even though the school failed to provide advance notice that the potential disciplinary actions included a transfer to another school