Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 27, 1995 TAG: 9506270044
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
A mother who faces jail time for letting her teen-age son stay out late says she is being "harassed," and her lawyer argues that Roanoke's tough curfew law is making her a "scapegoat for broader societal concerns."
But at a hearing Monday in Roanoke Circuit Court, prosecutor Gerald Teaster provided the most detailed account to date of how and why Patricia Holdaway came to be the first parent charged under the 1992 law.
Since 1987, when Holdaway's son - then 9 - was caught pulling a fire alarm at a city business late at night, he has been picked up for curfew violations at least 13 times by city police, Teaster said.
Holdaway, 36, was charged earlier this year under a provision of the ordinance that is used only as a last resort - holding parents responsible for allowing their children to repeatedly break curfew.
The most recent curfew offense involving Holdaway's son was over the weekend, shortly before she was scheduled to appear in court for arguments that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
Holdaway showed up for court a half-hour late, just as Judge Diane Strickland was asking Teaster and defense attorney Jeff Dorsey to prepare written arguments before she makes a decision.
Holdaway is appealing a decision by a Juvenile and Domestic Relations judge who convicted her in April and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
The American Civil Liberties Union has decried that decision, saying it threatened to "exacerbate the problems in the family by splitting up mother and child."
Holdaway is believed to be the first parent in Virginia to receive jail time on the curfew violation, the ACLU said.
Outside the courtroom, Holdaway said she has become frustrated with police showing up at her doorstep whenever her son, Lloyd Furrow, is caught breaking curfew. The city's curfew is 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends.
"I just think they're giving me a lot of harassment," she said. "I see all kinds of kids out on the street; why don't they go after them?''
Holdaway said she will contest the most recent charge because her son recently turned 17. The curfew law, passed by City Council in 1992 after a report from a citizens' committee, applies to minors 16 or younger.
Although city police have issued more than 450 citations to juveniles since the law was enacted, Holdaway became the first parent charged when Furrow was stopped while driving her car about 4 a.m. on Feb. 11.
Holdaway has said there was little she could do to control her son, who slipped out of the house while she was sleeping.
Dorsey argued that the ordinance is "unconstitutionally vague" because it does not state exactly what his client did to constitute criminal behavior.
"They want to say that she's a bad parent and that's a criminal offense, but we wholeheartedly disagree," he said.
"I don't think she should be made a scapegoat for broader societal concerns. This woman is charged with a specific crime of violating a specific ordinance, and she should be tried on that basis, not on the basis that society in general is concerned with juvenile crime or juvenile delinquency."
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Teaster said Monday he was not prepared to argue the constitutional challenge to the ordinance, asking for time to file briefs.
But he did respond to a second allegation by Dorsey - that the wording of the law allows and even encourages selective enforcement.
After Furrow was charged for the fourth time with violating the curfew last year, Teaster said, police warned Holdaway that she would face charges if it happened again.
"It's not discriminatory," Teaster said, "because any parent can lose control of their child for one night, and we're certainly not going to charge them for it."
by CNB