Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US judge puts sex ban on teenager who took drugs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:40 AM
Original message
US judge puts sex ban on teenager who took drugs
US judge puts sex ban on teenager who took drugs

Gary Younge
Tuesday October 4, 2005
The Guardian


A judge in Texas has banned a teenage drug offender from having sex as part of her probation, as long as she is living with her parents and attending school.

Christina Brazier, 17, pleaded guilty to possession of drugs, a crime which carries up to 10 years in jail and a $10,000 (5,700) fine. District judge Lauri Blake, who sits in Sherman, 65 miles north of Dallas, ruled that to avoid jail Ms Brazier "shall not have sexual intercourse while enrolled in school and living with parents".


"That's a new one. I'm not sure how you would enforce that," Jim Mills, interim director of adult probation for Dallas county, told the Dallas Morning News. The sex ban was one of many prerequisites Ms Brazier had to accept.

She was also ordered not to "wear clothing associated with the drug culture", "obtain any new tattoos or piercings" or "use tobacco products", and to observe a 10pm curfew.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1584270,00....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tainowarrior Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. this is pure fundamentalist crap
This falls under unusual and/or cruel punishment. You can't restrict the biological functions of human beings as punishment for drug usage. Wearing clothing, having tatooes, or having sex has nothing to do with drugs.

He might as well have forbidden her from playing her Xbox.

Freaking fundie ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Surprised pissin' and shittin' also not on the judge's list...
Jeeeezzzzzz!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tompayne1 Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. and she can't read "anti-american lit"?
A la (all progressive lit)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Does auto-eroticism count? And if so, HOW will they police this?
Wire her up 24/7 to a monitor and let federal officials watch her while she's taking a shower, eg?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tompayne1 Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. as part of the "war on porn"
hehehehe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. sounds like a website that the judge often visits
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Definitely if you take out the 'o' from 'count'....
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
58. I guess that means no masterbation as well ehh?
This is really unenforcable. If she's over the age of consent, then she can and will get it on as much as she wants with other consenting adults...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. where did you read that?
I read the article five time just in case I missed it... and i guess i missed it all five times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
55. she can't cut her hair, color her hair, wear dark nail polish
or dark lipstick--matter of fact, no lipstick (just chap stick), she can't talk longer than ten minutes at a time on the phone to any of her friends, no favorite music or cds unless they are gospel or christian music, no using the internets, no R rated movies. well...that ought to put a real crimp in her drug use.

and now i would like that judge to come into my life and point out all the ways i'm fu*king up, tell me what to do so my life is absolutely perfect and then i would like the judge to live it for me.

this country is turning into a game of limbo--how low can we go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. Although it's bullshit
The key words are "punishable by up to 10 years in jail". If I was in front of an asshole judge like this, I'd think I got off easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekelly Donating Member (303 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
63. Isn't that sorta like........
I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I mind if the government spies on me in my own home?

"...got off easy."

Easy.....yes.
But is it right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. ACLU : "do not like their probation conditions canreject, and go to jail."
Steve Blackburn, a lawyer involved with the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which lobbies to protect constitutional rights, told Associated Press that defendants who do not like their probation conditions can reject them, and go to jail. He said that probation conditions that violated someone's constitutional rights were best avoided. "The idea is that you can't ever ask somebody to give up certain rights," he said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. Justice is dead.
Dead and burried........ makes me sick... :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. A Christian Brassiere?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. As in:
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 10:54 AM by emad
Bishop backs panty parties to spread Church message
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 01:27 PM by emad

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 29/09/2005)



Evangelism and erotic underwear are rarely linked outside the tabloid newspapers. But a new book backed by a Church of England bishop urges Christians to spread the message to their friends and neighbours by hosting lingerie parties.

The book, Open the Door, argues that in an age when more people know their zodiac signs than the Ten Commandments, Christians have to use unconventional methods to reverse the decline in churchgoing.

It says: "What a tragedy that we are surrounded daily with television programmes, art, film and even real-life stories sold to magazines and newspapers that champion casual sex and pornography, yet as Christians we often have so little to say about it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20 ...

AT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
53. Is "Open the Door"
a euphemism for "spread the legs"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. "In loco parentis" seems to apply here ...
if the girl (she's not yet an adult) has not been sufficiently guided by her parents, then the court can act in their stead (or maybe, here, in reinforcement) to effect her more responsible behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gnostic Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
40. How can you be responsible...
...when you are yet another victim on the fed-guv's "war on the people", err, I mean "war on drugz"?

One more year and the fed-guv would consider her quite old enough to be shipped over to Iraq and die for lies. But they think drugs are far worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. 17 is the age of consent, no?
what drugs was she taking?

why 10 years?

what is "clothing associated with the drug culture"?

what is the "drug culture"?

what the fuck:

Ms Blake, 40, a Sunday school teacher and former police officer who was elected in November.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sin Donating Member (446 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Why not throw in
Must also have to wear White gloves, Attend a christian church of the courts choosing every sunday and holy day. must have a live video feed coming from her room and shower so she will not Pleasure her self.
and then whip out her box of form fitting Chasity belts she keeps in her quarters.

I think this no sex thing along with the other stuff stems from AA and NA because of the no sex rule for people that don't have one year being clean behind them, all of which is a form of court ordered religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Whip ....chastity belt: sounds like Opus Dei mandatory activity.
Maybe the judge is a fan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sin Donating Member (446 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Hehe
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 11:05 AM by Sin
Ya never know :)
But I can see shes trying to be * next pick if miers isn't confirmed.
(shakes head in astonishment)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gnostic Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
41. Never heard
I have been a former active member of various AA and NA groups across the country and I have NEVER heard this proposed in a single meeting, ever.

If it's written in their doctrine somewhere, or the "Big Book", it certainly is not followed or even condoned.

While sex can also be an addiction, and is treated as such, rightly so, by these groups, I have never heard them suggest abstinence until a year sober is in.

Matter of fact, many AA groups openly encourage dating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sin Donating Member (446 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Must have been a different group then mine.
I was in rehab my self and when i was 16/17 first thing they told us that was part of it was no sex and or relationships for one year so you can focus on recovery. and it was a NA/AA center well there recovery program was biased on it and they repeated that to us many many a time.
even in the local programs they did.
but i still drink now :) and smoke from time to time. not to excess well not near death excess but thats a different story for a different time. :)

But that was one of the lines that was fed to us every one at the center at the time and even in the meetings i went to after.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
50. AA "no sex rule"???
"I think this no sex thing along with the other stuff stems from AA and NA because of the no sex rule for people that don't have one year being clean behind them, all of which is a form of court ordered religion."

Hey I was never told not to have sex for the first year of getting sober. It was suggested to me that anything that would upset me emotionally or psychologically could lead me to drink again and would be best avoided. I did manage to avoid "falling in love" or having sex for the first year and it was very difficult. By the time 90 days rolled around it was springtime and my fucking hormones, which had been suppressed by 15 years of daily drinking, were RAGING! I'd have fucked anything that moved. All in all it was a good move on my part because if I had fallen apart over a "relationship" (read:"LOVE ME- LOVE ME!!!!!!) and gotten drunk again- I would be dead now. Show me in the Big Book where it says "AA Rule # 13- No Sex For One Year". Go ahead- I wanna see it.

As for "court ordered religion in AA"- yeah the courts send drunk drivers to meetings, and if the person leading the meeting wants to they can sign the drunk drivers paper to prove they attended a meeting, but AA does NOT do it at the behest of The Court. Understand?
You can spot a court-ordered person at a meeting because the LAST place they want to be is at an AA meeting. They sit in the corner and play with their navels... Want to get sober? Go to an AA meeting. Want to get a DWI off your record? Go see a lawyer. As far as I'm concerned- court ordered AA attendance is a waist of time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sin Donating Member (446 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Wow
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 01:43 AM by Sin
Your right no rule 13 only goes up to 12 it seems.
But you catch the drift as stated in your second paragraph.
pushed suggestion not written down but there
seeing as this was a drug offense by the girl AA/NA Guide lines probly clicked into this ( sunday school teachers head ).... what rule was it again you have to accept a higher power... in the 12.... and she then passed a unwritten rule into her probation.

As for me wasn't court ordered to go to na/aa went from out patient directly there how did this happen you ask well I used to be a casual smoker in my younger years and I'm a really really casual smoker now ( its gets boring after a while same with drinking)
well the hipochristans ( most were drunk in class some times and or high on what they got from mommy and daddy stash) in my nice Rc high school decided it would be be a nice kick the outcast in the gut some more to have his locker busted open and searched. unlucky for me I picked up the wrong jacket that morning and had a bowl in my hidden pocket(- one nice smoking jacket).well school sent me to out patient counseling. (no police makes the holy rollers school look bad even if they don't like ya.)

So to beat the piss tests they give ya there, drink it leaves the system in a day and with 1 meeting a week your left with that because if i didn't do something to take the edge off of going to that place (Place as in school) bad things probly could have happened. So weed ez to get Alcohol hard to get at 16/17 ( if you have no friends and or older siblings) so when I did get it I over indulged one night I decided it was time to shuffle off the mortal coil rather then go back to thoes o so blessed halls So I drank a lot of vodka and gin at 122 pounds at the time I didn't think I would be waking up from that one but to my wondrous amazement there was an afterlife but it turns out I just woke up in detox in rehab the fluorescent lights on celling had me fooled.

So no court for me no drunk driving just a really crappy school not really good health coverage my parents did what they could and gave me the best they could but health care was screwed up then and even more for them now so I had no fancy pills or doctors to stop depression and or any thing of the like.( seeing all the cool reports now they would have made me jump out of a building any way) So I did the best I could.

Yea seeing the judges religious backround seeing that a central role in AA/NA is some form of religion maybe a form thats usually pushed is the Sunday school and or the like ( lots of meetings in church basments...hmm)

So I will say that its a UNwritten rule that holds place with certain types of religious people that know about it and that just plain frown on sex before marriage and sex in general and would love to impose it any way they could.
then again maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions. :)






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #52
59. well, no- not jumping to conclusions, exactly...
that's one heck hair-raising experience you had there, Sin. Sounds like High school is as shitty a place for you as it was for me. Back in my day, graduated in '75, they just kicked you out for holding, but I never got caught. I was lucky, in that way. So, I just kept gettin' high all the time, y'know- partying. Kids do that. It's in part of being that age. And most (like you?) get tired of it or bored and just give it up or cut way back and get on with growing up. Me- I just kept partying and partying and partying some more and then one day 20 or so years later I looked at my life and saw how fucked up I was. Being a gutter drunk I had no insurance so the "rehab" centers were not available to me. AA was all that was left. And- my main point about all this- I went to AA because I WANTED TO BE THERE.

Back in the late 80's there was a whole lot of "rehab centers" opening up all over the country and they needed to fill beds- lots of beds. Seems to me that the "rehab industry" found a way to do that by working with the courts and making "family interventions" real convenient for folks who freaked out when they discovered their kid drunk or found a joint in their pants. They made it so easy to just toss kids into rehab, rather than dealing with the fact that they failed as parents. The kid may have gotten drunk or high a few times but that doesn't mean that they're alcoholic or addicted. Like i said- kids do that shit. Remember- the rehab centers tell you they are NOT Alcoholics Anonymous (and they are correct) but after a 30 day detox (for which they make a ton of money from the insurance agencies) they point you in that direction, pat you on the butt, take your money and wish you luck.

As you can prolly tell I feel nothing but disdain for insurance companies, rehab centers and courts who get money from people who are scared, confused and unaware of all their options.

I won't tell anyone that they are alcoholic. It's not my business, it's up to the individual to decide as written in the First Step. But if someone asks me for help, I'll drop everything I'm doing to give him a hand up out of hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Bloode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #50
60. A note for you and Sin.
Na/AA does not request NO sex for the 1st year. It is no NEW relationships. Have all the sex you want but don't complicate your (and your prospective partners) life with the added weight of a new relationship to your already tumultuous life. Anyone who views it as no sex at all is skewing their view.

It has nothing to do with sex it'self. It has to do with the fact that alcoholics and addicts are already having a hard enough time trying to keep clean and sober, therefore they should not bring in added pressure from the outside. A bad relationship may easily get someone back to drinking or using.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
54. what? !!!!
I would have thought a little happiness, relaxation and exercise would be what people needed to help them give up. One rule when I was working in drug rehab was to Never get someone to give up more than one thing at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
15. Much better story here
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localn...

Looks like bits and pieces were taken from this article ( from Sept 29th)

My only comment on the case is: I'd rather spend time at home and celibate, than up to 10 years in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Post #7 still begs the question then.....Celibacy as in no personal
pleasures whatsoever???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. If it says "no sexual intercourse," then it does not prohibit
her own private sexual pleasure.

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. But celibacy means ZERO/ZILCH/NOTHING...
and includes all personal acts irrespective of company/lack of company.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Was this the ruling of the Court? Was the word "celibacy" included?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gnostic Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
42. She's a tyrant
I read that article and she's treying to run her courtroom like a tyrannical fear lord. She locked up a lawyer for being "rude"??? No sleeveless shirts???

Will she start demanding that people entering the courtroom march in lockstep too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtbymark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. I'd file an appeal n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
21. That judge sounds like a good candidate
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 11:00 AM by arikara
for the Supreme Court if Harriet isn't confirmed.

on edit: Just to add "in Chimpy's world"... in case someone thinks I'm serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
despairing optimist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
23. Chastity belts are apparently for sale


When I did an image search, some kinky photos came up. It must be a fetish item. As Martha Stewart used to say on her radio spot, you learn something new every day.

A ceramic version wouldn't set off metal detectors. If things keep going the way they are, it could become a must-have fashion accessory. Have these things made it into any music videos yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Music videos, cell phone ring tones.....the possibilities endless.
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
26. OK. This woman has mental problems. Serious ones.
Which seems to be a prerequisite to holding positions of power in the US nowadays.

I predict she'll be in the SCOTUS shortly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
27. It's a crime for a minor to smoke, use drugs, get tattoor or break curfew
But unless she's been caught or admitted to having sex, that part of her probation is illegal.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gnostic Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. Wrong
You can be 16 in some states and smoke. You can get tats and piercings with a parnet's consent, even marry.

Oh, by the way, it's illegal for ANYbody (I wont go into the politics of why) to do "drugs". That is, unless you happen to be a RW radio talk show host.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
28. Nothing from Texas surprises me
How that place got so twisted is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. It's the water
Bush dropped requirements for testing water quality when he was governor, so the toxic contaminants probably alter genetic structure, not to mention brain matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
30. Interesting responses
I think the girl, if she abides by this will be a lot better off than going to jail. Seventeen year-old drug users are on a downhill slide and nothing good would ever come of her life if she stayed on the same path. Seventeen year old girls with a history of drug use should be going to school and should not be having sex either. I'm sure this is a disappointment to 17-22 year old young men, but it's usually not a wise thing to do.

If the young lady and her family chose to accept this, then everyone is better off, now aren't they?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. If she wants to live in her parents' house, she must obey their rules
The court is giving her the choice of doing so, or going to jail/the youth home.
My rules when I was 17 were similar-no sex, no drugs, no alcohol, no smoking, go to school every day without skipping or being tardy, do my homework, work part time if I wanted to drive, etc. Because I obeyed their rules, I graduated from high school, went to college and got a good job when I finished.

I know a whole lot of family court judges and referees who are not fundamentalists or even christians who would issue similar orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Thank you for your
Edited on Tue Oct-04-05 11:36 AM by OKNancy
sensible post.

I had those rules for my two children ( although unspoken, they just knew) and I'm liberal and an atheist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #36
57. different strokes ...
I'm a liberal and a deist, and my children were allowed a little wine with meals from as early as they wanted it, allowed to smoke, but not in the house, and allowed to sleep with their partner at home, at any age, provided they introduced him/her to me first. ;) But to counter that they had my example, (I was a single mother) of rarely drinking at all, not smoking, not dating, and living like a nun. The example seems to have had much more effect on them than the lack of rules did.

This is not to criticise you way of doing things, we all have our different ways, but if it works it is still more likely to be your relationship with them and the example you set that keeps them on track.

A few years back some interesting statistics came out of America, proving that the most important thing to lower the likelihood of teenage girls sleeping around or getting pregnant was them having a good relationship with their mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
33. the sex ban I could live with
but no new tats or piercings????

that's just un-American
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildClarySage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
35. Why are the details of a minor's probation requirements being
published along with the minor's name? I thought court records for minors are usually kept private?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. Not anymore
The media challenged the privacy rules in many states in the late 80s/early 90s and won. Reporters are free to sit through family court hearings-juvenile and abuse/neglect, and to report on various aspects, although the names of the children on the abuse/neglect docket are not to be released-the media is allowed to release the parents' names, but generally doesn't because doing so exposes the situation to anyone who knows the family. An abused kid should not have to go out in public and be afraid that people will recognize him or her from the news or the paper.

State CPS and FC records are still confidential, but the reports from those agencies that are contained in court files are not.

Of course, the media has no respect really for childhood innocence. If they did, they would have left Elizabeth Smart alone after she was returned to her family, they wouldn't have published or broadcast the details of the kidnapper's charges and everyone would have let she and her family deal with the fallout in private. In that case, there was so much publicity in the search for her, I'm sure the media felt they owed it to us the public to give us all the salacious details. I'm cool with the prosecutor representing the people's interests when it comes to cases like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
37. Good grief, what kind of dumbasses do we gave parked on benches
in this country. Apparently they think the can strip everyone of all their civil rights.

Crap, what a (pathetic) joke we've become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
39. When she turns 18, she'll just move out and do what she wants
or what's to prevent her form "getting married"? Would they still hold her to the celibacy thing?..

Parents who miss the mark when kids are young, can't have a 'do-over' later..even if it's court-ordered :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
44. yeah . . . like THAT's gonna work . . . n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
46. Anything that begins
"a judge in Texas..." is off to a bad start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
48. What? no mandatory church attendance?
Judges must be slipping in this country...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tgnyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
51. So she could drop out of school or run away from home
and then have sex.

That's some funny shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
56. idiots! Tell a teenager no and they will rush out to violate it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
61. A judge in Texas?
Enough said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
62. How stupid! Another example of a "judge" who doesn't belong on the
bench. Maybe Bush can nominate the fool for the SC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
64. Riiiight.
I'd like to see that enforced. You go get you some, girl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bmbmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
65. Here's Judge Blake in the news
again.

http://www.herald-democrat.com/articles/2005/10/04/loca...

Allegations against judge continue to be considered
Should a grand jury impaneled by a local judge be asked to hear allegations of official misconduct against that judge? That is the question being batted back and forth between Sherman Attorney David Stagner and Fannin County District Attorney Richard Glaser.

Never a dull moment in Grayson/Fannin county.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 24th 2017, 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC