Unrepentant pair of 14 year old humpers face jail. Fair or not?

Great Debates
301

Oh, this is great.

Holmes, you rockin’, bud.

You’ve brought up a lot of very discussable issues. DOES a parent have the right to control his kid’s education, re: creationism vs. evolution? DAMN good question! In fact, it’s so good, it’s still being debated all over the country! Parents have pulled their kids out of school and homeschooled 'em, rather than have 'em exposed to such evil, pernicious influence!

Do they have a right to do this? Yes. They are, insofar as they are able, acting in the best interests of their children, and they are not causing any actual harm to the children. At least, not unless you can prove that evolution is a fact, and not merely a theory … something the best legal minds have as yet been unable to do.

Actually, though, I agree with you. Parents SHOULD have some responsibility towards adequately preparing their kids for real life, and they SHOULD permit “real life” experiences. Should one of these experiences include sex? Damn’fino, and I’ve already RAISED my family.

But I sure wouldn’t wanna be the one to stand in the way of certain parents and say, “Your religion is fucked, and your idiocy is harming your children.” Who gets to decide? Man, not even the law wants to tackle THAT one.

…so we simply allow parents to raise their children as they see fit, and monitor the situation as best we can. You CAN force your child to worship the god of YOUR choice. You may NOT, however, kill or torture your children as part of religion-based exorcism ceremonies, and you may NOT deny your children medical treatment because you’re a Christian Scientist.

Is it a screwy system? Yes. But as I believe I mentioned earlier, it beats federal regulation of bedtimes, and it’s an improvement over allowing the children to do as they please without regard to parental requirements.

If I am responsible for you, I must control you to some extent. If I am not responsible for you, then by all means, do as you please. I’m no power tripper. RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT AUTHORITY is at best a joke, at worst a
cruel joke.

Oh, man. Ohmanohmanohman. I’m laughin’. You’re actually pretty close to being right… and if you knew how close, and how RIGHT, you’d shit green lightning and pink thunder.

Most parents AREN’T the problem. Most parents figure out fairly early that disciplining children is something you have to do to control 'em, and most children grow up to be about as reasonable as their parents in terms of handling discipline and restrictions. MOST KIDS never get arrested for ANYTHING, much less sex or disobeying their parents.

…and then you have the parents who want to have their kid jailed as a runaway because they sneaked out and looked at hominid skeletons at the museum, to swipe your example.

Hell, I like that example. Let’s run with it.

Psycho parents have child jailed as a runaway, because child insists that their religion is not entirely correct. Child recognizes that Mom and Dad are a bit nuts, and wishes to rebel against their suffocating strictures. Mom and Dad, in a righteous dudgeon, decide to have the ungrateful little twerp sent to Brother Roloff’s School For Wayward Children, where scripture and discipline will be tortured into him!

Trouble is, Brother Roloff’s school only accepts girls. So they send him to The Place Where Wang-Ka Used To Work, a residential treatment center with a youth corrections unit.

The staff will check him over, assess him, submit him to a battery of psych tests. Eventually, we will determine that he is not insane and not in need of any medications or anything.

We WILL, however, recognize that he is in need of some therapy. He doesn’t wanna accept parental authority, he’s rebellious, and has an attitude and behavior problem.

Well, this puts us in a bit of a quandary. The law sez he IS responsible to parental authority, until he reaches eighteen, at which point he may pick his own religion and move the hell out.

So ol’ Wang-Ka is in the position of having to explain this to the young chap, and make it as palatable as possible for the poor guy. Meanwhile, every weekend, Wang-Ka gets to have conferences with the psycho parents (if they show up) in which they want to know why the hell their boy ain’t “fixed” yet.

Wang-Ka is not allowed to explain to the parents what shitheads they are, and how they share the blame for this situation. All Wang-Ka can really do is suggest family therapy for them AND their kid… during which they can happily reject any suggestions the therapist has for THEM. After all, THEY didn’t come here for treatment, now, did they? Just do whatever it is that you do that makes our kid obedient and godfearing, and we’ll collect him and be on our way…

…and I think you see the situation. I can personally point out over a hundred cases much like this one which I dealt with over a fifteen year period… and I’m only one guy.

Yes. Most teens aren’t really a problem.

Often, when they ARE a problem, the parents share some responsibility. Perhaps MOST of the responsibility, depending on the case in question.

…so give me an alternative, here. What do we do about it? Rescinding ALL parental authority over ALL teens, simply because SOME parents are shitheads is a non-starter. Hell, we can’t even get the gun nuts to give up their guns on that basis, even though a few gun nuts are murderers.

Give me some alternative.

302

I think the problem you are having is you are still treating this law as if it is established practice, when in reality we are debating a hypothetical.

Wang-Ka already admitted he has heard of ZERO other cases of teens being convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex with someone their age.

ZERO.

Now, maybe there have been a few other such cases. But certainly not enough for you to have this inexplicable attitude that this law is widespread, and we are trying to get rid of the only thing preventing an avalanche of teen pregnancy.

In the hypothetical case that this law became widely enforced, as it stands now, criminalizing all consensual sexual contact between teens regardless of whether their parents mind, there would be disastrous consequences, including third parties abusing the law. There would be blackmail, and there would be malicious people turning kids in. IF this law became widely enforced in its current form. And that is why I have been arguing that it should NOT be widely enforced in its current form.

That is why if such a law is to be made available in other states, and enforced, we need to make sure that only the legal guardian of a teenager is able to have them arrested under the law. If the parent trusts the kid to use protection, and is willing to take the risk of a baby, then that is their right. You don’t speak for all parents.

Most parents would be outraged if a third party had the power to have their kid convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex. Luckily, your callous lack of concern is not the norm.

Furthermore, everyone else has already agreed on this. You are the last holdout who thinks that third parties should be able to have someone else’s kids convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex. Try to keep up.

303

Oh, yeah: Brother Roloff was a real guy. He offered yet another alternative in the way of child care and discipline. Unfortunately, the law took a dim view of his form of “residential treatment for youth offenders.”

CLICK HERE to find out more than you wanted to know…

304

And Nightime… I still think that the parents of EITHER kid involved in a sexual incident should be able to call in the law. Remember what I said about your kid sneaking in my window?

305

You should be able to call in the law to make him leave. You might even be able to have trespassing charges or something, if you told him to stay out. It’s your house, after all.

But you should not be able to press sex crime charges against him. Why? Because what if his parents are fine with him having sex? What if they are willing to take the risks?

If you deal with your own kid, you don’t have to do anything to the other - it takes two to make a baby.

306

To hell with his parents. They have NO right to involve me or mine in their childrearing decisions.

If they’re okay with their kid having sex, peachy. I couldn’t care less. But if he’s having sex with MY kid, then I become involved.

What if I am unable to control the child at that particular moment? What if I’m not home? This implies that we can convict MY kid for doing the same thing YOUR kid gets away with scot free. How is this fair?

I personally prefer the scenario where you tell your kid, “If you’re going to have sex, please do so in a responsible and appropriate manner. This includes staying the hell away from Wang-Ka’s kid because he does not share our views, and can and will have you arrested if you mess with his daughter.”

Perhaps you do not like this… but I think it’s preferable to,

“If you’re going to have sex, please do so in a responsible and appropriate manner. This includes staying the hell away from Wang-Ka’s kid, because he does not share our views and will blow your $#@#ing head off if he even THINKS you’re messing around with his daughter.”

Y’see, some people take this sort of thing very seriously. And before you get wound up, NO, I am not in favor of murdering anyone. I would much prefer a legal alternative, intended to deter your responsible and appropriate-acting teen away from my daughter. Hence, the law. If he’s so responsible, perhaps he will ponder the legal consequences, and go screw someone else’s kid.

…and if he is not responsible and appropriate, and tries to have sex with my daughter anyway, he can face the legal consequences of his actions, whether YOU feel like busting him or not.

307

They aren’t doing the same thing.

One of them is disobeying their parents, and causing risks for their parents that they are not willing to take.

The other isn’t.

And again, if you take your own kid out of the situation how in the world do you have to worry about a baby? It still takes two people to have sex, right?

And having it take place in your house changes things. You have a certain authority over someone that comes into your house.

But what if your kid goes over to his house?

308

The first alternative is not to go to extremes. I am not suggesting rescinding all parental authority over all teens. I do suggest that we hold parents to a higher standard before allowing them to toss their children to the wolves.

Wang-Ka, the alternative is to help people like the posters here; who believe that placing a relatively normal teenager in a state institution, is a perfectly acceptable alternative…Understand that it is not.

I agree that you can’t help the nutcases, but it’s the enablers that allow these nutcases to use the courts in such a way. Why is it so hard, for the courts to ask exactly why little Timmy is being “corrected” by his parents and then judge the parents unfit? Timmy still gets removed, but at least he’s not placed in a building full of kids with real problems. I’ve seen first hand what happens when an average kid, gets tossed into that mix…he didn’t come out ‘better’. They would eat little Timmy alive.

Remember the OP, has the state and law enforcement involved. It’s not like in your example, the parents making most of the decisions, it’s the state. And I’m sure you know, the state is very bad at doing such things.

Should a parent be able to instill values into their children? Absolutely, however once they turn to the state for guidance when the child rebels, they are opening up themselves to judgement too. And if it comes out that the reason little Timmy is being considered a runaway, is because he went to the Musuem on a Saturday morning with a group of other teenagers; it’s time for the parents to get “examined”. Not Timmy. As they are ready to give Timmy to the State anyway, take him and put him with normal foster parents, or a farm in Utah… whatever, but not in a “corrective” institution or with ‘serial’ foster parents.

Will be easy? No, but the alternative is to allow the state to create another monster, one whose record will be ‘clean’ at 18.

That’s my real beef here. Not parent’s rights, or the responsibility of parents and children, but the willy nilly throwing away of young people’s lifes…because they had sex or disobeyed an unrealistic demand from their parents.

309

Wang-Ka,
Let’s say your daughter opened the window and let him in. Let’s say she called him. Knowing full well, your views.

What then? The law? Institution? What do you do with ** your** kid? Why are you so sure that it’s him? I don’t know of any teenage boy, that could resist the charms of a ‘bad’ girl and that’s what your daugther is, if she’s the one pushing these meetings.

What to do?
How about this? You act like an adult, call the other parents and find a way to control this problem, 'cause it ain’t gonna stop. And that may be, wait for it…sex education actually done by the parents for a change.

Unless of course you’re prepared to call the law on your own kid, and admit that you’re a failure as a parent, because that’s what you’ll be.

What would I do? I would do what many parents with troubled teens do…find the meanest relative, in the remotest location and ship 'em there. Break the bond and time’ll do the rest. If not, well I guess romance isn’t dead after all.

310

Yup. It takes two to have sex.

And when sex is illegal… well… I guess that translates into legalese as “conspiracy,” doesn’t it? I believe the laws allow for ALL members of a conspiracy to be tried for the same crime, under most circumstances.

The location the sex takes place is irrelevant.

Admittedly, the “Wang-Ka will blow your head off if you pork his daughter,” example is a bit extreme… but I DO have personal, professional experience with similar real-life situations, including one that resulted in a murder.

And the idea that you can permit your son to have sex with my daughter, and that ONLY my daughter can be held responsible for any liability if you refuse to restrict your son is ludicrous. It demonstrates the kind of indifference to others and to society that I thought we were working to instill in these kids in the first place.

…and, frankly, I think it’s dangerous. If your boy thinks he can have sex with anyone he likes… well, let’s just say the consequences can be a hell of a lot more immediate than an STD or a baby.

I think I would rather see your boy wind up on probation, maybe some community service, maybe a fine… than beat up or shot by some crazed father. Do you disagree? Note also that I’m not even suggesting JAIL, here. Not unless the kid shows the kind of stubborn disregard for the law that practically demands it … as in “multiple repeat offenses.”

(I really have a tough time understanding people who say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, NO jail, NO restriction for teenagers!” and add no qualifiers. I personally think that most first offenses – for MOST juvie crimes – should result in a scary warning, a second in probation and/or a fine, and third and subsequent offenses to be determined by the court. HOW MANY TIMES does a kid have to demonstrate he has NO respect for the law before it’s okay to put him in jail?)

And I really don’t think I’m being too extreme, here. Or, to quote a father I had professional experience with, “I’ll be out of jail before that boy’s jaw heals. And he’ll know what’s waiting for him next time.”

I thought the guy was a bastard, frankly. But I’m not so sure I wouldn’t do the same thing, if a boy was bound and determined to screw my daughter, and it became clear that neither the law nor his parents were going to do a thing about it.

So, once again, folks, YOU decide. Law… or barbarism?

311

Whoopsie. Forgot to address Holmes, here.

Using your example – that my daughter is a slutpuppy, and that the boy in question is as pure as the driven snow, driven to temptation this one time – I would, as a parent, toss him out of my house, and then discipline my daughter as I saw fit.

Now, assuming that the boy is a good boy, he’ll stay the hell away. But we have already established that my daughter is bad, bad, bad to the bone, who not only wants sex but gets off on flouting parental authority, rebelling, and so on. Am I on track here? We may therefore assume there will be further incidents, perhaps involving different boys.

Now, I’m a believer in warnings, particularly to the young. Any boy I catch in the house is going to get a warning, and a healthy dose of terror, but no actual violence (unless I need to defend myself, or he refuses to leave). I see no point in involving the cops in this, unless he’s got my silverware in his pockets or something.

If I catch him in the house more than once, I will certainly consider involving the police, depending on what my options are and my assessment of the situation.

As to MY kid… sigh… I’d try the same tactic. Since we’ve painted her as a pop tart, though, we know that warnings aren’t going to work. She’s going to be sneaky, she’s going to do as she pleases, and sooner or later, I am going to have to impose some manner of sanctions.

Sure, I’m gonna try sanctions. I’ll try grounding her. I’ll try cutting off her allowance. And I will warn her to hell and gone that if this doesn’t work, then I will be prepared to try something even less appealing to her.

And if she insists on testing those limits, I am going to gradually increase the pressure, depending on my assessment of the situation, and what the law allows. Certainly, I can’t chain her to her bed, or rig the house so she can’t open the doors or windows, even from inside. Fire hazard, if nothing else. Illegal.

…but if I think my daughter is crazy or irresponsible enough that I need to take extreme action to prevent her getting pregnant or catching an STD…

…then it may well be time to consider incarceration of some sort. It would not be something I would like. It would be far from my first choice. But if she’s that stubbornly stupid, that irresponsible, then the last thing I want is for her to have a baby. And don’t even get me started on STDs. And I certainly don’t want to deal with the fathers of boys who suddenly are testing positive for a variety of lively diseases or whatever.

The alternative, depending on the circumstances, involves having her emancipated, and tossing her merry little ass out of the house, and refusing to be responsible for her actions.

I have seen several situations of this sort. It’s hard to draw exact examples and comparisons, because the situations vary pretty widely… but that’s pretty much it, in a nutshell.

…and THIS is what I meant when I said I wanted to maximize my options under the law. If I don’t NEED those options, peachy. Who wants to make their kid a prisoner, anyway?

I must also take exception to your phrase “failure as a parent,” Holmes. Given the example above, it could well be that my daughter is being a slutburger because I have in some way failed in my responsibilities to her… morally and/or legally.

But I have seen any number of situations where the parents have done everything they could… and the kid turned out bad through no fault of their own. Or would you consider a child suffering from attention deficit disorder to be indicative of one’s “Failure As A Parent?”

I’m not offended, but you might wanna watch your phrasing, there. I have seen bad kids arise from the best houses, and I have seen some terrific kids transcend their insane evil families. It’s weird, but it happens.

Oh, and “mean relatives.” Sure, it’s an option. IF you have mean relatives who are willing to put up with your little hellion. What if you don’t?

312

Well, since the law in question makes it illegal to have consensual sex, not merely to get pregnant or bear children, I’d say we’re talking about sex here. There are many ways to separate the consequences from the act; it happens literally millions of times every day.

Wrong. You gave me 14 cites that you wanted the teenager to be responsible for her offspring, not her parents. “Disruption” or “inconvenience” is irrelevant, since you agree that nothing kids do is without inconvenience.

And the astute reader will note that is exactly what I’ve described. If the baby starves, who will be charged with neglect? The teenager’s parents? No, because they aren’t responsible for the baby. The teenager is, and she will be charged with neglect. The parents are only responsible for their daughter. If they give her money for food, and she spends it on something else, that’s her problem - they’ve done their part.

Nice weaseling. The quotes I gave were a fair summary of the conversation: I suggested the parents let her know ahead of time that she isn’t welcome (unless she neglects her child), you said she is welcome to sleep at home (but only if she neglects her child), I said offering her a bed under the condition that she break the law is as good as no offer at all, you said it’s too disruptive.

It’s all there on page 6… but of course, you deny your own words. You’d rather post pointless insults and smug self-congratulations than address my points or your own double standards.

You seem to take this awfully personally - no one has been as hostile as you. What’s your dog in this fight, anyway? Did some neighbor kids leave a wet spot on your porch or what? I’m here because I support youth rights in general… I didn’t think there was a specific anti-youth rights faction.

Do you even support the law in the OP, making it illegal for teenagers to have consensual sex? I was informed a couple pages back that no one here really thought kids should be locked up just for having sex.

Well, before I answer, I must admit I’m not familiar with all the options parents can use to “control” their children.

Would it be legal to have your kid “interned in some form of restrictive environment” for refusing to do his homework, clean his room, or eat his vegetables?

The teenagers aren’t trying to perpetuate the species, in fact they’re probably trying not to do that. The vast majority of sex acts don’t result in children at all, first because there are many many ways to avoid pregnancy and childbirth, and second because even when you want to conceive, it can take several months of trying. Pregnancy is certainly a potential outcome of sex, but to call it the “sole purpose” of sex in modern human society–especially when contraception is involved–is a fallacy.

And yet people still get killed walking across the street and skiing. Obviously they aren’t trying to get hurt, but neither are teenagers having sex trying to get pregnant. They know they’re doing something that has certain risks, so they take steps to minimize the risk.

Sure, that’s parenting. But that 10 year old wouldn’t be hauled away by police and locked up for trying to go down a black diamond slope, would he?

Who’s being indifferent, and to whom? The boy is having sex with your daughter, not with you. He isn’t obligated to get anyone’s consent but hers.

If it’s a crime, then I’d say it’s okay to put him in jail the first time… but consensual sex shouldn’t be a crime at all.

If someone were to assault my kid for something like that, I’d be waiting when they got out of jail, and they’d have more to worry about than just their jaw.

313

Mr2001, I’m tired of this.

Just admit it. You were asleep at the switch. You weren’t paying attention to what I’ve been saying and now you’re looking a little clueless.

My hypothetical scenario was based on the premise that if the parents aren’t allowed some “authority” over unruly kids (in order to prevent them from possibly risk having babies), then the parents shouldn’t have to bear the burden of the thing that they were not legally allowed to (maybe, possibly) prevent.

So I wanted to know if there was a way to make the parents 100% out of the burden, responsibility, inconvenience, whatever you want to call it, and put it all on the kid who decided that they had to take that particular risk. Because if the parents can’t have “authority,” I don’t think they should have to deal with the consequences. (I know a lot of them would anyway, but I don’t think they should have to.)

And I meant that the parents would be 100% out of it. 100%. I meant that. Every bit of it. And I took this hypothetical scenario (as I mentioned before) to its “literal extreme.”

And I explained it 14+ times. But you wouldn’t get it.

Of course the scenario was harsh. To keep the parents out of it means it would have to be harsh. All that burden on a very young teenager would make it unbelievably difficult. But you wanted to play, so go ahead, I thought–let’s see what you can come up with. And you came up with some doozies (the “putting school on the backburner” and allowing the young teen to work full time was the real corker.)

But as it turns out you just weren’t paying attention well enough, so sorry, the game’s over.

I’m tired of it. I’m tired of you trying to parse my words and I’m tired of you trying to make something out of quotes that (if they actually were so outrageous) could have easily been caught immediately, HAD YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

But you weren’t. Face it, dude. It’s over.

I think you are a bright fellow and actually, I like you, but this time, my patience has run thin. And I think these recent posts have been reflecting that impatience.

So, I’m gonna keep watching this thread and perhaps keep participating in it, but come on, my dear. Let it go. I think we’ve both been wasting our time with this exchange of ours. What Wang-Ka and holmes have been discussing is far more productive, so I’m going to look towards their discussions from now on.

314

The idea that I am not responsible for my minor daughter’s baby is inane.

There is legal precedent that says that grandparents DO have rights as far as their grandparents are concerned, and while I don’t think I have ever heard of a case where the grandparents have been held responsible for their offspring’s inability or refusal to care for their grandchild, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it. Where there are rights, there are most often responsibilities. And let’s not forget that “Mommy,” here, is A MINOR!

At any rate, if I’m any kind of a parent, I’m not going to just sit there and let my grandchild suffer due to my kid’s indifference or incompetence.

…which is one of the reasons I’m in favor of laws to backstop my authority as a parent… either to help prevent such events, or to provide some sort of help for ME, after the fact.

I fail to see where a teen getting terrorized by a judge, sentenced to community service, going on probation, or even spending a month in a halfway house or youth shelter constitutes “having one’s life ruined.” I am inclined to think that people who see it this way don’t know diddly about the juvenile justice system.

315

OF COURSE NOT.

I would be shocked if there was a good solution that kept the parents 100% out of it, but some people were willing to play along with my “hypothetical scenario” taken to its “literal extreme,” and they came up with some pretty unusual “compromises.”

316

I’m sure you’d like to think that. The way I see it, you were talking about legal responsibility for 5 pages, then revealed that you really meant something entirely different all along.

Yes, who knows what horrible things would happen if minors actually had a little control over their own lives.

I can’t disagree with that. :wink:

The only “grandparents’ rights” I’ve heard of have been for visitation, but the Supreme Court has ruled (in Troxel v. Granville) that a parent who provides adequate care for her children must be able to decide with whom her children will associate. The grandparents’ rights existed because of a state law, which was deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

I’d be surprised to hear of grandparents being given any rights regarding their grandchildren where such a law didn’t exist, and even more shocked to hear of grandparents being held responsible for their grandchildren who live elsewhere.

317

Hey, if you can’t bestir yourself to pay attention (as in “what part of 100% don’t you understand?”), then…whatever.

All I can say is, a lot of other people read my question too. None of them were busy trying to convince me that 13-year-olds could work full-time as telemarketers. That was uniquely you.

318

Yeah? Even when the parents of the grandchildren are MINORS?

319

No you’re not on track…

Once again you go to the extreme. Your daughter doesn’t have to be a slut, nor did i say she was. All she has to be is in love, wih a boy that you don’t like and that’s enough. That’s enough for the “Romeo and Juliet” syndrome to kick in… and all your threats mean nothing. All you do is make them stronger.

She goes to school, she does her chores, she feeds the poor. But when it comes to this boy, she will not yield. She’s not into gangbangs or all the extremethings that you need to blostier your stance.

The extend of her “getting off on flouting parental authority, rebelling, and so on.” is her desire to be with this one boy. Who while not pure as the driven snow, ain’t a bad kid.

Good luck…it won’t be long before they stop going to your house.

No, YOU painted her as a tart…as it’s a lot easier to drop the hammer on a tart, than a normal, healthly young girl who believes she’s in love.

Another extreme. I know I never said or indicted that this young woman was stupid, nor would she refuse to be safe. You can’t make a case for law, by using unrealistic examples. I mean you can, but what’s the point?

If this whole discussion is that in some alternate universe, some parent will have a kid so horny, (remember this discussion is about 2 teens having sex… not shooting heroin) that their poor mother is overwhelmed…

These Bizarro world parents are also orphans and friendless with no other family member or friends to help them…

and their only source of solace is the state.

Then you win. Have your laws, for all the good it’ll do.

You’re stacking the deck again…where did in this discussion ** before** now have we even hinted at a neurological cause for this young person’s behavior? Once again, the only way to support your argument is with an extreme.

At least for my contribution to this thread, I have always used the term “relatively normal”, I realize that’s a subject term, but ADD doesn’t fall within it, IMO.

Still to answer your question…no, I wouldn’t consider a child with ADD, the fault of a parent.

But let’s take your example to it’s logical conclusion: A 14 year old is having sex with multiple partners. Tests show there is no ADD, brain tumor, chemical imbalance…yada, yada, yada. Yet the child is continuing to disobey her father’s wishes and is having unsafe sex.

As a professional, where would you be focusing your attention to? The child or the parent?

While, I’m not a professional, it’s seems to me one reason while any child would be engaging in deviant sexual behavior…

320

As a professional, I often focused my attention on the kid AND the parent. You just have to be a bit more circumspect when dealing with the parent, since the parent is assumed by law to be competent, responsible, and so forth, until someone proves they ain’t.

But if the kid is engaging in unsafe behavior, there is ample legal precedent for locking him or her up. Particularly when there is a mental or physical cause for this behavior.

I’m sorry. Perhaps my taste for humorous hyperbole has stacked the deck. You make a very interesting – and highly likely – case. Very well, let’s assume my kid is as good as they come… but she is fourteen, and wildly in love with a Kid I Do Not Like.

Her sole violation of my will is her desire to sleep with this guy. I sure HOPE I’m understanding your example correctly.

Now: as to supporting the argument. You are correct in that I tend to use extreme examples. Duh. The law is there, as a rule, to DEAL with extreme examples. NON-extreme examples don’t NEED laws.

If your boy and my girl are fine and reasonable human beings except for their desire to have sex with each other because they’re head over heels in love… it is likely that there need be no legal involvement at all. This is where you and I, as responsible parents, put our heads together and be PARENTS.

Maybe, since they are such fine, reasonable people, we can get them to agree to put off the sex until they are of age.

Perhaps, if you and I can come to terms, we can simply put my kid on the pill, and be done with it.

Perhaps we can coordinate our efforts to chaperone the little buggers.

The point is, that since we are all such fine reasonable people, we can seek alternatives.

…but now I am forced to introduce an extreme.

What if one of us doesn’t wanna be reasonable? What if I simply decide that my kid will have no sex until she’s of age?

DO I OR DO I NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CALL?

…and if I do have that right, why does the law NOT back me up?

Well, actually, it does. Here in Texas, I can think of several statutes that could be used against my kid OR yours, depending on the circumstances… anything from “unlawful entry” on outward.

Please note that I am trying very hard to avoid weird extremes here. In this hypothetical example, I wish to avoid exposing my daughter to sex until she is of legal age, period. My reasons, as far as this example goes, are … oh… let’s say, religious, that’s a good one. Yeah, that’s it. My religion forbids sex outside marriage, so my kid shouldn’t have sex.

SO:

If my kid’s a good kid, she won’t have sex. Problem solved.

But if she has sex, she may well be smart enough to not let me find out. Problem solved, or at least avoided.

If I find out, I warn her of dire consequences, ground her, whatever.

BUT… let’s say I catch her again. And again, and again. It becomes clear that sex is happening, and will continue to happen, whether I forbid it or not.

What then? Are you seriously suggesting I defy the will of my Chosen God and just let her boink anyone she likes? What if I don’t have any distant relatives willing to take her in?

Plainly, the time has come to enforce my decision. And I would frankly like to do so in a humane, legal manner, as opposed to tossing her in a mental hospital, or doing some kind of nutty end run around the law.

In short, that’s what the law is ABOUT. Extremes. We don’t lock people up for traffic tickets, but if you collect enough of them, or you don’t pay them, you are in for some trouble.

My kid made it to age 21, no STDs, no pregnancies. If she wants to talk to us, we listen, and she’s pretty much always managed to handle her parents’ directives, whether she liked them or not.

…but what if it had been otherwise?