Attention Parents Of Teens: Would You Vote Yes Or No?
Let me first start by saying my kids are still young so I don’t have any teens. The town we live in we found by accident. A number of people stressed…yes stressed for us to live in University Park or Highland Park. The area and homes were nice but not for us. We settled in Southlake which is absolutely beautiful. Our Town Center might be the nicest in the country or at least in the top ten. It is spectacular with great shops and restaurants, and the center is filled with little parks and fountains. Very nice. Apparently the area is now becoming home to teens - in fact lots of teens. The town is trying to do something about it. They are proposing a curfew for anyone under 17 to be out after 11 pm Sunday through Thursday, and after midnight on Friday and Saturday. There are a few exceptions if the teen is with his parents or traveling to/from a job or a school related activity.
Since my kids aren’t that old, it should be very easy for me to vote. Although my vote might surprise you. I say no… I don’t think it is a good idea. If there is a problem with a few, punish them. Find out who they are and take care of the situation. Don’t make a law with a curfew to punish many. It makes no sense to me. It is the responsibility of the parents to be in charge of their kids. Not the town. In a recent newspaper article, the Police Chief states, "We’re trying to head off a potential problem, it’s also better to be on the preventative side than the reactive side." I understand his point but my vote would still be a no.
- What would your vote be?
- Does your town have a curfew?
- What is your curfew for your teens?
I look forward to hearing your comments.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:23 am
My vote would be yes. They are teens — not yet adults — although apparently there are some adults who still need rules and curfews too ’cause they never seem to grow up. But, not to get too far off the current subject….it is my opinion that such a proposed curfew would also serve as a safety measure for the “good” teens out there. I see no reason why at the age of 13-19 you would have any reason to be out and about after 11pm on a school/week night and 12am on the weekend unless you were looking for trouble or up to no good.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Definitely no!
When you rely on the police to enforce parental rules you’re limiting teens’ ability to make smart decisions and parents’ ability to set the rules of their own family.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I would have to say ‘yes’.
While we do want our teens to make better decisions and choices, we need to keep in mind that some of these kids are not as supervised as they should be at home. Most kids would not be out during those times anyway and those that are shouldn’t be so I believe a curfew to help deter the few is not a bad idea.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Interesting two comments - two different points of view.
I am no for sure - so the count is 2-1 for no.
I hope a bunch of people comment on this subject.
Thanks.
Merrill
March 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I am in the YES category. Teens do not have the same rights as adults and having been to town center to see the teen madness at night obviously parents could care less about the behavior of their teens. How can you drop off a 13 or 14 year old child and leave them to their own devices unsupervised for hours at a time? You want your child to learn life lessons but that doesn’t mean you let them go play in the street at night. Too many parents have stopped parenting and have decided to be their kids best friend. Kids need a parent, they need rules and boundaries, we don’t need another generation of spoiled kids who have no respect for authority.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I also say YES! I agree with Rhonda, Natalie and Ken. It’s a sad day when the police have to step in to give teens guidelines because the parents don’t do their job of making sure their teens are at home at a safe hour. There is no reason for teens to be out that late, regardless of what day of the week it is.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
My vote would be yes for the curfew.
I live in a town that has a curfew and definitely see the benefits. Unfortunately I don’t think there are enough venues for teens to hang out, and so the neighborhoods become there spot, which is fine. But for safety, noise and other reasons I support a curfew, especially during the school year. (our town relaxes the hours by one hour during the summer) Teens are still children, and what is the saying, it takes a village to raise them. I don’t think a curfew is stomping on their rights. I believe a curfew is setting good guidelines.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
The early results are in 5-2 for the curfew! The no boat is very small at this point with the only people in it being Josh and myself.
Enjoy the weekend.
Merrill
March 10th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I vote ‘yes’ as well. While I am not in favor of the public enforcement of a private issue, I also feel that, left unmanaged, it becomes problematic. I also happen to agree with my parents who always told me that nothing good ever happens after midnight!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Are you kidding me? NO.
As a person who grew up in Southlake during the last decade I have seen the number of young adults in the town grow. I know firsthand the antics that take place in Southlake and the other surrounding towns (and yes they are probably the same things everyone else did as teenagers). The decisions that teenagers make, good or bad, will ultimately decide what kind of an adult the teen turns out to be. It is up to the parents to raise their child…not the town of Southlake. The same trouble that exists at 11pm exists at 8pm.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I’d vote no. My kids, my responsibility. Frankly, I’m probably in the camp of punish the parents along with the kids. Besides, I’ve found that I rather enjoy talking with my boys (go figure!), so building a relationship and teaching what I believe is right and wrong is hardly a burden. I don’t want the town, or the federal government for that matter, telling me what’s right and wrong on personal matters. If I did, I’d love water-boarding!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I have three boys, 29, 23, and 17 so we have had this discussion several times. Part of the discussion always centers around “well John’s parents let him stay out later” or “the State of Texas has determined that at 17 I shouldn’t have a curfew.” My response has been that neither John’s parents nor the State of Texas pay your tuition or your car insurance.
Granted, some parents don’t care what their kids are doing so the City Ordinance may be helpful. However, it only applies until age 17 at which time kids are still juniors in high school. Responsible parents will manage the issue. I don’t know why 17 is the arbitrary age. They get exceptions for work.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I vote yes for a teen curfew. No matter how much they whine, teens do need, and according to child experts, WANT some limits. However, a teen curfew should also include some consequences for parents, as well - perhaps community service together??
March 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The count stands at 6-4 to pass although the last 2 postings have said no so member that is a trend.
I haven’t heard the exact results but two different people over the weekend mentioned the curfew passed.
More to follow for sure.
Merrill
March 10th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I would have to vote NO.
I am in the camp of ‘it is my responsibility to raise / govern my children’. Not for the local government to lay down laws for my family - that is my job. My kids are still very young but I don’t see letting my children be out that late without knowing where they are. And if I do decide to let them be out that late, I feel that is my choice. The problem is not necessarily the teens being out late (although we all know about idle hands), it is more that some parents don’t take an active interest until their child does something wrong. Even then some still don’t take the needed interest. It really starts and ends with the parents.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I live there, I have teens and I vote yes. Yes it’s up to the parents—I’m fully aware of that and accept that responsibility. But the fact of the matter is there are other parents who don’t feel the same way—and this helps keep them in check.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I vote YES. Like some others, I believe there is no good reason for teens to be hanging outdoors past the times of the curfew. Our city has a curfew, and it is a helpful tool to minimize loitering that could turn into nuisance or crime as bored teens try to find something “fun” to do. While I also believe parents should be setting the guidelines, I believe many parents…in the hopes of being the friend of their children…may not choose to set guidelines for coming home. If it’s mandated, others in the community are not negatively impacted by potential bad parent/teen choices.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I’m a parent of a soon-to-be 15 year old and a 12 year old. While I’m as liberal as they come, I vote “YES”. I live in Peachtree City, GA where the attraction for families is quality of living, low crime, high class, and a system of golf cart paths where you can travel anywhere on your cart. It’s also a major mode of transportation for a cartload of teens. And we have that very curfew (a challenge for Band Boosters to scoot kids home after late games - there is no written exception, just the HS Resource Officer giving PTC Police a heads up that they’ll be going home after curfew).
Yes, we as parents are responsible for raising and teaching our own kids what’s right and wrong. But what worries me is my teen out with his other well-behaved friends, traveling the cart path through the only “rough” part of town (no alternate route) to be stopped, robbed, and yes injured by kids who have NOT been brought up the same way. I’m not worried about MY kids - I’m worried about YOUR kids doing something to MY kids. They are kids, after all, and studies show the teen brain is still developmentally a child’s brain. In general, they still lack the hardwired ability to make the choices we expect of adults.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I also live in Southlake and I vote NO. It is my responsibility as a parent to determine when my teen should be at home. I don’t believe we need to add teen curfew enforcement to the responsibilities of our Police Officers. I think we would all be served better if they spent more time patrolling our streets to eliminate true criminal activity. When my sons, were teens, they usually had to be home before midnight. But, I should have the freedom to decide if my teen has a legitimate reason to be out after midnight.
The real problem in Southlake Town Center is the under 16 crowd of teens that are dropped off every Friday and Saturday night by I assume their parents. I am amazed how many of these kids appear to be under 14, dressed inappropriately (from my perspective) and are left unsupervised for hours to congregate and wander around the restaurants and stores. I never dropped my under 14 year off to hang out at the movies, mall or Town Center.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I vote YES, no question about it. No matter how responsible you may be with your own kids, you cannot account for others. And the consequences for irresponsible adults and kids may be dire.
When my stepdaughter was 15, she asked her Mom about going to a place called “The Georgia Theatre” in Athens, GA. It was a dance club that stopped serving liquor at 2 am, but kept its doors open until 4 am. Teens had found out about this and would go out in the middle of the night. My wife gave her a definite “No”. Her daughter informed her that she had gone there a few weeks earlier while staying overnight at a friends.
My wife called the father of the friend to tell him that when her daughter stayed there, she was not to leave the house for any reason unless they called home to ask us. The father assured her that he had not known. He said that the kids must have snuck out, but it would certainly not happen again.
The next weekend we got a call from 911 at about 3 am. At midnight the friend’s uncle had given the kids the keys to his van and told them to “have a good time”. At 3:30 am, on the way home, they drove off the road and flipped the van. Jessica received a traumatic brain injury and has been in a persistent vegetative state for over 10 years now.
Kids under 17 have absolutely no business being out after midnight.
No matter how responsible the parents are, you cannot account for other parents, owners of adult establishments or stupid uncles. If your teen is ever going to stay at a friend’s home, or go on a camping trip or any other kind of overnight sleepover, you cannot ensure that they will be properly supervised.
I only wish that Athens, GA had had a curfew for teens.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Kathy,
I must admit I have read all of the responses very closely since this is happening in my home town. When you said ” I’m not worried about MY kids - I’m worried about YOUR kids doing something to MY kids.” It got me to rethink my position and maybe just maybe I am changing my mind and voted yes.
I respect everyone’s opinion on this issue. Bringing up children and something all of us need to take very seriously that’s why this topic is so important.
Keep the comments coming.
Thanks again Kathy!
Merrill
March 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I absolutely say YES (and I have a 22, 20, 16 and 7 year old). There is a curfew in my city of 10:00 PM for those 17 and younger. When the PSAs come on, “It’s almost 10 o’clock; do you know where your kids are?”, my answer is ALWAYS “yes”. Aren’t ALL laws created for the minority who abuse; for the betterment of society as a whole? If statistics show that the majority of teen crimes are committed after the hours of 10:00 PM (or whatever time), then it makes sense to me to attempt to reduce the likelihood of those crimes being committed. I feel that I’m a responsible parent and that I monitor these things appropriately, but that’s not who these curfews are in place for. Just look at the new laws surrounding teen drivers/permits/licenses. In CA, they can’t drive after a certain hour, can’t drive in the car with someone under a certain age, can only have so many passengers in a car, etc. Also, isn’t this in line with laws that state someone under the age of 21 can’t drink alcohol, or that alcohol can’t be sold after/between certain hours to citizens of any age?
March 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I say “No”. Unfortunately, too many today think the government is the answer to any of our problems. I don’t. Teens or young adults or adults for that matter who want to do harm (either by ambushing a good kid taking a late trip through the woods or car jacking or selling crack to another “bad person”) will happen regardless of the curfew. Bad people are out there and they will be out there regardless. Good parents aren’t going to allow their children to be out alone after the hours indicated. Bad parents are not going to enforce the curfew regardless if it passes or not. I’m very tired of the government taking away personal individual freedoms. Just think, the next step might be not allowing anyone, youth or adult, to be out after a certain time.
March 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
(I don’t know what kind of parent this makes me, but I decided to show this blog page to my 13 year-old, and invited him to comment. The text below - all of it - is his, 100% unedited. It’s also interesting for me to read, as even with my water-boarding comment above, I don’t talk a lot about my views on civil liberties.)
I’m definitely in the ‘No’ category. While this may be attributed to my being in the age range, I think that there are several supports for this case. First of all, why is 11 pm any different from 10 pm? Is it that suddenly at 11, all teenagers become drug addicts or dealers? I don’t believe so, at least not from my experience. There is even the possibility that this ‘bad’ activity could increase after the curfew being put into place, due to the teens wanting to ’show the police who’s boss.’
The cliche is that ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.’ The ‘bad’ kids are likely the children of ‘bad’ parents (I wish I had a better word than bad). The ‘bad’ parents would not care about the curfew, while the ‘good’ parents would. This would lead to having only the ‘bad’ kids out on the street at night. Does this accomplish the original idea? I think not. Also, some people have expressed the view that it isn’t THEIR kids that they are worried about, it’s the OTHER kids, the ‘bad’ kids. How do you know that your kids aren’t the ‘bad’ ones, the OTHER ones?
On a slightly separate note, I recently did a project for my Social Studies class. The choice of what to do it on was open, so I did it on something that I am seeing a lot of - the loss of the rights granted to us through the United States Constitution and the Amendments that followed it. Although there is no mention of a right that states when a teenager can be outside until, each step takes us closer to being imprisoned in a cage of rights that have been ‘modified’ or ‘changed.’ Simply putting a curfew on children could lead to more and more ‘modifications’ to the laws of the USA.
In addition, it is not the job of our nation’s police to be the nannies of children, quite simply.
I’ll finish my wall of words with this comment: I strongly believe that wrong-doers should be punished justly. If a teen is caught with an illegal drug, it shouldn’t matter whether it is noon or midnight. All that should matter is the crime, and I do not think that simply standing outside a store at midnight is a crime.
If you managed to read all this, thank you very much, and I appreciate your opinion, whatever it may be.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Definitely “no’ for all of the reasons cited by others. My kids are 20 and 16 and I would have to consider moving if I lived in a town where a curfew was mandated by the government.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
To Jeremy’s son,
I did indeed read your entire article and want to let you know that it was a very well thought out response and you make some excellent points. Let me state that I too want the government to stay out of peoples life as much as possible…a smaller government would be a good thing for everyone.
I however still must disagree with you on a few points.
My first point is that I do not believe teenagers have the same rights and privileges as adults do in this country. There are laws on the book that say you must be 16 to get a drivers license, you must be 21 to order alcohol and the list goes on. If government is working well, we create laws that serve the community as a whole and does not cater to any specific groups or individuals and I believe that is what a curfew law is attempting to do.
You are right that 11pm is an arbitrary number, but so is the age of 16 when you can drive, or 21 when you can drink alcohol. There is nothing magical about these numbers it’s just that you have to have a starting place. Over time maybe those numbers get adjusted based on more data or a general attitude about any given situation.
To me this law helps the police handle what is perceived to be a problem in the city. Whether that problem is simple loitering in front of places of business or maybe more serious problems, the curfew law gives police a pretty black and white way to get a handle on the situation. It’s pretty easy to check someones age, check the time and find out if they have a valid reason for being where they are at that time. It’s an almost impossible task for the police to enforce loitering and other laws and really you don’t want the police tied up enforcing such laws. The curfew law will have 2 affects. 1) It will cut down on the amount of teens who are out late (because the good teens, good parents will follow the law) and 2) It will make enforcement by police, when necessary, an easier process.
I do not want the government in my house dictating how I should raise my kid but government does have a role in addressing the greater good of the community by passing laws about what they see as best. If the community does not like those laws then they vote people into office that will pass laws more favorable to their point of view. Again, I do not see this as a Constitutional issue because as a country we have decided, for the most part, to limit the rights of children.
Again, good points. It’s encouraging that someone so young has any interest at all in the Constitution and the law.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I don’t think that we are talking about arresting kids here, just having the police take them home when they are found out too late.
This is about having the police protect kids. That is the job of the police, “to serve and protect”, and certainly protecting children is the job of government.
I am actually a bit shocked to read the comments that suggest that the children of “bad parents” should not be protected by society, government, the police. I mean, is it OK if the children of “bad parents” are harmed because it is their parent’s fault? Personally, I don’t think children are less deserving of protection just because their parents are lacking.
But it is also for the protection of the “good kids” and the “good parents”. If there are groups of “bad kids” hanging out at 3 am, the “good kids” of “good parents” are going to be enticed to join them. Many of the “average kids” (the majority who are not “bad” but also not too “good” either) are going to be tempted to go with the crowd. A curfew is going to discourage them.
The difference between 10 pm and 11 pm is that 11 pm is later and people are more tired and more likely to make stupid mistakes.
Would anyone object to a 3 am curfew for 13 to 17 year olds? I doubt it. I mean, if the police were to see a 15 year old out on the street at 3 am, I think that most of us would be shocked if the cops did not check on them and take them home. So, is 12 am too early for a curfew? Is 3 am too late? Some of this is just common sense.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I would vote yes. I grew up in a town where there was a curfew on 13 and under after dusk, 11pm for 13-15 and midnight for 16&17 year olds. The curfew law also clarified that there was also a parent/guardian responsibility to ensure this was enforced. That is where the real reason I support it came in - if you’re under 18 and get in trouble, your parents get in trouble too. It takes accountability up the chain to where it needs to start.
I honestly don’t know what there is to do after midnight if you’re a teenager - nothing legal is open, so what is the issue? If you’re hanging out a friend’s house, might as well stay over once midnight passes. I never felt restricted by the curfew and in all honesty the city’s curfew was later than my own parents. Do I think it infringes on a teenager’s rights? Not really, unless they pay taxes!
March 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I want to say that the “yes(es)” make some very good points and do have me thinking about my position.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
The fact is many U.S. towns and cities have teen curfews with more are passing them all the time. According to USAweekend.com’s curfew count:
More than 700 cities have enacted teen curfews, including 146 of the nation’s largest 200.
The population of Southlake, Texas has grown ~25% since 2000 (today it is ~27,000). Due to the growing popularity of Southlake as a place to live and shop, the town is now big enough to have to deal with this issue and they’ve passed this ordinance like so many others before them.
This is simply a tool for law enforcement and parents. I’d bet there are multiple “vote no” responders of this blog that live in towns that have curfews and don’t even know it. Have you checked with your city/town…you might be surprised.