
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, March 6, 1995                   TAG: 9503080021
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR KIDS ARE?

THE CITY of Roanoke's 1992 curfew ordinance is on the books in good measure to protect children - a fact that most parents readily appreciate, and kids with any sense might, too. The sad fact is that youths out roaming the streets at night are easy prey for drug dealers, sexual predators and other menaces, not to mention the possibility of getting into trouble on their own.

The '92 ordinance, which replaced one that was ineffective and virtually unenforceable, has a good set of teeth: It holds parents responsible if their children break curfew more than twice in one year, subjecting parents to possible punishment of up to 12 months in jail and/or a $2,500 fine.

Is that fair? Just? Parents who try, but simply cannot control their kids, may think not. But neither is it fair to the community to have youngsters out wreaking havoc at night, or fair to leave youngsters in harm's way without reasonable efforts by the community to intervene on their behalf. And it's not as if the city is using the ordinance to harass parents. Those who have difficulty getting their kids to obey the ordinance are at first and repeatedly warned, and urged to seek family counseling. Clearly, they need such help - and so do their children.

But repeated violations should not be ignored. This is, after all, a law. At some point, city officials must conclude that a parent is showing no responsibility, and they should take action. That is allegedly the case with the first parent arrested under the city's ordinance - a 36-year-old mother recently charged with letting her son stay out past the curfew five times in the past year. (That's how many times he was caught.)

The outcome of the case is pending. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that city officials are picking up fewer and fewer repeat juvenile offenders under the 2 1/2-year-old law, which may indicate effectiveness. Officials say, moreover, that parents have been generally receptive to having it enforced. When police pick up children breaking the curfew and take them home, most parents understand that the action is in the best interests of their children. Many also see the ordinance as an aid to help them better control headstrong kids.

It's also worth remembering that the ordinance was the result of a lengthy task-force study that involved young people in the writing of the law. In truth, most kids want and respect reasonable boundaries on their behavior. These give them greater physical security, as well as the emotional security of knowing that adults care about their well-being. The city's ordinance also provides plenty of leeway for situations when those age 16 and under have legitimate reasons to be out after 11 p.m. weeknights or past midnight Fridays through Sundays.

The concept of holding parents responsible for their children's actions remains a sticky wicket. (The concept, incidentally, isn't new. Laws hold parents responsible for damage their kids do, including property damage or injuries caused by underage kids driving without a license.) Other localities' curfew ordinances have been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, but the ACLU concedes Roanoke's would probably withstand a constitutional test.

That suggests Roanoke has done it right, and may well have a model curfew ordinance. Model or no, it's there mostly for kids' sake.

by CNB