E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBill Burnett was arrested for unknowingly allowing alcohol at a house party for his son's football team. He and his wife Cynthia talk with TODAY's Matt Lauer about the complicated issue of teen drinking.
Just as kids will be kids, teens will be teens.
And so it was that at a party of about 40 high school students in Menlo Park, Calif., last month, the music was too loud and the teens – celebrating the last football game of the season – got rowdy.
So rowdy that someone called the police, who came to the house and determined that some of the kids, ages 17 and 18, were, according to a police spokesperson, "displaying the signs of being under the influence of an alcoholic beverage."
The police then arrested dad and Stanford professor Bill Burnett, who along with wife Cynthia was hosting the party for their son, a high school senior. The charge against Burnett: 44 counts of contributing to a minor’s delinquency. Burnett spent a night in jail and faces a year’s sentence and/or a pricey fine.
The kicker of the story? Burnett and his wife insist they did not know there was alcohol in their house. In fact, they told TODAY, they tried to do everything possible to make sure there wouldn't be drinking at the party.
"We put really clear rules in place and we were patrolling the party," Bill Burnett told Matt Lauer. "My wife and I were both at the house. We were upstairs. The kids were downstairs in the basement. So we were there the whole time, I went through the party a couple times. I brought chocolate chip cookies. I was about to bring them brownies when the police came."
Live Poll
Should parents be held responsible for teen drinking at their house, even if they didn’t condone it?
Lauer asked Cynthia Burnett if, in hindsight, there was anything she could have done differently.
"I don't think there is anything else we could have done short of sitting there in the middle of the party," she replied. "You talk with your kids about how to be safe, how to make good choices, how to take care of each other. You let them know that you're there, both supervising and in case they get-- they do make bad choices."
But good intentions aren't enough in the eyes of the law, legal analyst Star Jones said on TODAY.
"They were absolutely wrong," Jones told Lauer. By law in California and many other states, parents are responsible for what happens to teens under their roof -- even if they're clueless. "Your job as a parent is to supervise and exercise control and protection and when you don't, the police have to step in, especially when there's alcohol involved."
The Burnetts' case have many parents wondering if they're doing enough -- or if you can ever do enough to keep teens from drinking at parties.
In a story for the Palo Alto Patch, writer Lisen Stromberg says that Burnett, apparently, had done everything he could to keep the party safe and the teenagers in line.
He told the neighbors there would be a party just so they knew he knew what was going on. He and his wife (who'd just had major back surgery) were there to “keep an eye on things.” (Rumor has it he was baking chocolate chips cookies to give to the kids when the police pounded on his front door). He did everything right, and still it all fell apart.
Stromberg raises the question: What’s a good parent to do?
If we want to celebrate these special events in our teenaged children’s lives, we place ourselves at risk. So is the answer, no parties? Doesn’t that place our children at greater risk? Let’s face it, as much as we might like to ignore or deny it, our kids are going to find a way to party.
What do you think? Should parents be held responsible for teen drinking at their house, even if they didn’t condone it?
Note: This post was updated with the Burnetts' comments on Dec. 8.
"Like" TODAY Moms on Facebook, and follow us @TodayMoms
Leave a Comment:
If the parents were in the house, absolutely. Even if they were in the house and didn't know what was going on, they should be held responsible. It is the duty of the parents to know what is going on in their homes and with their children. As for underage drinking in general, as parents all we can do is make our stance on underage drinking and the consequences of it known to our children. After that, the kids will have their own choice to make (and will have to live with the consequences of that choice).
The article said some of the teens "displayed the signs of being under the influence". It said nothing about empty containers, or teens caught on the premises in the act of drinking. What if the kids came to the party under the influence? It's not like that would be surprising. So then what were the parents to do, conduct a field sobriety test on each person attending?
While I believe that parents must be held to some degree of accountability when it comes to consumption of alcohol by teens on their property, this case seems a bit over the top.
"After that, the kids will have their own choice to make (and will have to live with the consequences of that choice)."
Agreed, except in this case, it sounds like the parents did everything they could reasonably be expected to do, and that it's they, and not the kids, who are having to live with the consequences. . .but the parents.
Is a school responsible for underaged drinking if some of the kids sneak booze into the prom? Despite that, these parents were playing with fire by hosting such a large party of teens. I'm sure they were probably trying to appease and spoil their little "angel" of a child, and thought they and their friends could not do anything wrong. However, it's naive to not think that many teens wouldnt cause some sort of trouble on their property. Also, I'm pretty sure these hippies knew there was some booze floating around.
A question for all the prudes who actally think this guy desevers to be in jail. Are you also conservatives who usually say that the government should stay out of our lives and if so, how do you justify the contradiction?
We do live in a police state now their arresting the COOL parents.
I know all of you were perfect when you grew up.
There are very few instances in the law where a person can be held responsible for something someone else did, and of which, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, he was not aware. Is this one? Should it be? I agree with other posters that we're only getting part of the story. With no evidence to discredit the father's story, I think it remains plausible that alcohol was consumed outside the home. If that's the case, NO!! It's not the parents' fault, and we would be wise - as we would expect the legal system to do - to withhold judgment until all the facts are known.
In reply to livinginthewoods: Government should stay out of our personal business. When we overstep the boundaries of our "personal business" and it starts affecting/hurting others, especially minors, directly, then it is no longer a personal issue and the authorities/government have every right to intervene for the public good. That's how it's justified.
Yashmak: completely agree. No where in the article did it state that the children were actually found to be intoxicated through a breathalizer test. Many of them could have taken any number of drugs prior to arriving at the party. This guy's responsibility? No.
Still, though, I think a party of 40 high school seniors is dangerous and inviting trouble. Any party I heard of in high school that had that many in attendance ALWAYS had drug and alcohol involved.
This article doesn't make it clear where the alcohol came from. Was it brought into the house and was the drinking happening there or were the kids going out to their cars or arriving that way? The answer to those questions changes the whole question as to the responsibility of the parent.
If you read the article from the local news company, it sounds like the arresting officers got WAY out of line:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23438
I've said it before: If the law fails to punish these law enforcement officers for abusing their power, the people will continue to lose faith in the police force. When that happens, vigilantism will rise and respect for police will fall.
If there was drinking on the premises, the parents are responsible. If kids got there inebriated, then it would have been irresponsible of the parents to turn them away! (In fact, if they did so and an accident occurred, you can bet they would have been sued!) And of course, it says they "appeared" under the influence...kids could have been play acting. Much more evidence is needed before convicting these folks!
Teens are extremely good at sneaking alcohol, even with responsible parents around supervising the event. Like someone else above said, if kids spike the punch at prom, do the school officials get arrested?
Only in America!
California only loosely qualifies as America these days, in my opinion.
This is ridiculous. I used to respect the police and thought that all the hate was misinformed, but now they're all starting to smell like bacon to me.
If they did all they could to supervise this party, then why was it so rowdy and uncontrollable that the neighbors had to call police? At that point, I think it's pretty clear that things were out of their control, and they ought to have called it off - alcohol or not - because it was a public nuisance.
Not holding them accountable would set a precedent that parents could host all the drunken parties they wanted as long as they play dumb about it. (There are plenty of parents who want their kids to like them that much.) I think it's the parents' turn to hunt down which teens brought the alcohol and start spreading the blame. And hopefully these officers do arrest the drunken ones, and investigate their parents' homes as possible suppliers. (I mean, if we're going to charge someone, let's at least get it right.)
Are there any bottles or cans of alcohol to prove they got drunk there? That is what I want to know.
"Are you also conservatives who usually say that the government should stay out of our lives and if so, how do you justify the contradiction?"
I'm a conservative who believes that (based solely on the info in the story) these parents DON'T believe to be jailed/fined for this.
This is classic nanny-state nonsense, and while some social conservatives may in fact (as you believe) be in favor of it in this particular case, conservatives in general are opposed to nanny-statism.
Point is, this isn't really an issue of left vs. right, so it's probably beside the point to try and turn it into one.
"then why was it so rowdy and uncontrollable that the neighbors had to call police?"
I once had an upstairs neighbor call the police on me, claiming I had a big party going on in my apartment. In reality, I was watching an episode of Star Trek TNG, by myself, in my living room. It wasn't even on loud. So don't automatically assume that the call was justified.
On the other hand, it WAS 40 kids. 40 kids at that age, drinking or not, rowdy or not, gathered at a single house, is probably enough to spark calls to the police nowadays.
That's a sticky question. My short answer is: Yes.
Parents are legally responsible for what their teens do, and what goes on inside their house. Sometimes teens do some shockingly stupid things just because they are teens and not grown yet, and that sucks, but they aren't grown yet and their parents have to deal with the consequences. That's part of being a parent.
If you don't want that responsibility, don't have kids.
These parents were home at the time of the party, which makes me raise my eyebrows a bit. Even if they were so unobservant that they missed the kids drinking, they'd have to be deaf not to notice the amount of noise if their neighbors were calling the police over it.
There were MANY too many teens to reliably control or even just observe with only two adults, and they're lucky the only thing the kids were caught doing was drinking.
The call was not from the neighbors. The police got an anonymous call. For all we know it could have been a spurned girl or boy from by another and they wanted to get revenge.
This is a catch 22... I've had friends who's parents let us drink that their house as long as we all stayed the night... But this was not a daily or weekly thing. It was for a b-day or some celebration. They figure that we were going to do it somewhere anyways, so why not do it safely under their rules and protection.
Either way, unfortunately they are under our supervision and would be held responsible for having known we were drinking; even if it was good intentions to keep us off the road and safe. This is a tough topic. It was leagal to drink at the age of 18 at one point. Which rule is too stiff? Zero tolerence until 21 or lowering the age?
Yeah, kind of a two sided question there that depends on the circumstances at the time. If the parents are home then YES they are responsible! How you do not know teenagers in your home are drinking (even if they have it hidden well) is beyond me. If you are not home and they sneak it in without your knowledge or approval, though, that is a different story.
Teens are pretty sneaky with that, and the parents are not omnipotent.
"How you do not know teenagers in your home are drinking (even if they have it hidden well) is beyond me."
If they came to the party having consumed alcohol elsewhere? What then?
Someone spikes their 20oz of Pepsi with rum. Is the parent supposed to taste-test each and every beverage?
Brokinarrow is right.
My question is, "Did the underage drinking occur at their house?". The parents are certainly responsible for any drinking at their house. It's their responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. However, if these are high school seniors and have transportation, what if the drinking occurred prior to their arrival? I'm a parent myself and I'd hate to be responsible for a teenager's behavior before he arrived at a party I was hosting. Was that clarified in the story ?
Good point, where did the drinking occur?
Wow, the prudes get out early! These people did nothing wrong. The cops are the ones in the wrong. I will NEVER give a police officer permission to step foot inside my house, better have a warrant.
Look, parents are easily fooled by their kids. That darling son or daughter smiles and says, "Oh, no, mom and dad, we would never do that"--and it should be no surprise that sometimes kids lie. Also, if the party was so out of hand that the police got called, didn't the parents notice the noise themselves? Didn't they go check and ask what was going on? I can understand not wanting to intrude, but they are parents and it's happening in their house. Come on.
That's the real question: WAS the party that noisy, or did someone just call it in cuz they weren't invited?
When I was 15 or 16 I had my first high school party when my parents were out of town. I had permission (yeah, I was one of those "responsible types") and I'd told everyone there was no drinking allowed and yet a couple people still showed up drunk and essentially ruined the evening for the rest of us with the behavior only drunken teenage boys can pull off - we all know what I'm talking about. What's more, one of them had brought alcohol with him which went unknown to me until I realized that as the night progressed instead of sobering up he kept seeming MORE drunk. I would absolutely believe that it's possible these parents had no idea, especially in a group that large, and that certain kids could have either shown up already intoxicated or snuck ancohol into the party. I've also had to babysit other friends who showed up completely trashed to Homecoming. It's fairly well known in the high school world that if you're going to a party where you can't drink that you simply need to get drunk beforehand.
I'd like to know; were their kids drunk? Were their kids the ones supplying alcohol?
dont have parties that are too big to monitor. do understand that someone is going to call the cops, especially if you tell them its happening beforehand. some neighbors just dont like teenage parties, no matter how well managed. its very likely that police will check on a party of several dozen kids without anyone even reporting it. its called paying attention and not looking the other way. if the professor could not manage the party, how about hiring an off-duty to assist?
Those nosey neighbors deserve an ass-kicking! I'm soooo glad I don't live in a city neighborhood anymore. If it was me, I would be right back in jail over that busybody dogooder.
I don't think parents should be held accountable. If they are teens they are more than capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong and there fore capable of making the "RIGHT" choice. Perhaps next time I would suggest sending a letter of what is expected of the teens when they attend the party. Also, as previously stated have an "off-duty officer" at the premise conducting breathalyzers for everyone underage that shows up (just to be sure that no one was drinking before they arrived). Let them know that they are not allowed to bring any beverages of any kind to the party.. any beverage on them when they arrive will be confiscated and disposed of immediately. I would also suggest having each kid attending sign an agreement of some sort saying they understand there will be no alcohol at the party and no one allowed to attend that has been drinking prior to the party. Sometimes extreme measures are necessary but its better to be safe than sorry. It's a shame that us adults can still be held accountable for our kids mistakes even though they are old enough to make their own choices.
Crazy to think that a judge would ask a kid of 12 yrs of age which parent they would rather live with (in the event of a divorce) and take the childs statement into consideration.... but kids who are 17-18 yrs old make their own choice to drink and the law immediately holds the parents accountable because they say their kids aren't capable of making such choices. STUPID???? I THINK SO!!
You are responsible for events that happen under your own roof, and you are responsible for your children if they are under the age of 18. This is established law. In this case, both factors applied, which makes the parents doubly at fault.
If you don't want to take responsibility for your kids and your house, be childless and homeless...that's your choice.
If you DO want to be responsible, don't host an event with more kids than you can control.
The whole point is the 18 year olds are not kids! Under the law they are considered adults exept when it comes to drinking, this makes no sense! They can go into a store and buy pornography or go to the middle east to die for oil companies! So, why can't they drink? Is it better for them to do this sort of thing in hiding where no one can intervene if something does go wrong? I think most of you are prudes that don't realize you kids are people and someday they will be grownups doing all the same things you do.
hwilson - Regardless, if you read the article posted on the local news' website, the arresting officers were way out of line and failed to read the man his rights and didn't even inform him WHY he was being arrested. Furthermore, as far as we can tell there was never any PROOF that the kids had indeed been drinking as they were not administered a Breathalyzer test.
yes exactly you have no legal control of anyone 18 or over. You can't make them do anything under the law. So if they are 18 and over and break the law then only they are responsible.
If you're willing to have a party for underage kids in your home, UNDER YOUR OWN ROOF and there's drinking going on, like it or not, yes, you will be held responsible. Therefore, it's probably in your best interest to host a small party, small enough that you, as parents, can see everything that is happening and put an end to any dangerous activities (drug usage, alcohol, date rape...).
If they were so loud that neighbors were complaining, I don't understand why the party was allowed to get so out of hand, to the point that there was drinking yet somehow, the parents were oblivious to it. The noise should have been a red flag to the parents, if not to break up the party, to see why the teens suddenly became loud and rowdy.
Had one of those underage kids decided to drive drunk and killed someone, you can bet that the victim's parents would sue the drunk kid's family, who would in turn sue the party organizer's family for allowing underage kids to drink and drive and not supervise their drinking while under their roof. I know because a few years ago, I remember this scenario took place in my city and the parents of the victim took the party organizer's parents to the cleaners in a lawsuit.
Level of noise does not = level of drunkness.
What kind of dumb-ass question is that? If your kid kills his friend in your house, are you responsible? If a kid throws a lamp at another kid in your house, are you responsible? If a kid sneaks whiskey into your house and drinks it, are you responsible? The idea that someone is responsible for everything that happens in his house is stupid and PC.
oops- I uprated your comment right before I read the PC bit - incorrect usage. anyway, agree with everything up to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Aranhas two extra votes for you. You hit the nail right on the head.
Aranhas asks:
If your kid kills his friend in your house, are you responsible?
In some cases, yes.
If a kid throws a lamp at another kid in your house, are you responsible?
In some cases, yes.
If a kid sneaks whiskey into your house and drinks it, are you responsible?
In some cases, yes.
In the case that there is a child who is known to be violent, and the parents are not properly monitoring, then the parents would be criminally liable if the child did in fact kill someone. In the case that a child throws a lamp at another child, the parents are financially responsible for any injury (because the child cannot be sued). If a child sneaks whiskey into the house and dies of an overdose, the parents might well be found to have been lacking for having failed to supervise the child.
Yes, there is a little thing called "being responsible" that others appear to have forgotten. When one is a parent, one is legally responsible for what the child does. Allowing a party with 40 children with only one adult to supervise (the other one was ill) was supremely irresponsible. The fellow is danged lucky that the worst thing that happened was that a couple of kids showed up drunk and the police officers--who don't appear to like that family for some reason we aren't being told--decided to pin this on the non-supervising parents.
A party with that many kids should have had several chaperones who should have been in the room with the teens--not in a different part of the house baking cookies or brownies. Had I been assured by the father that the children would be "supervised" and found out later that his version of "supervision" was being in the house, baking, and periodically circulating at the party--I'd have been danged upset. He deserves a fine--not jail time, but a stiff fine. Because, yes, he is responsible for his own stupidity as well as the stupidity of the teens that he had promised to supervise.
How many people slip little things past TSA, How many drug dealers get away scott free because the police miss this or that detail, or they just got lucky. Odd that when all the worlds professionals can't manage a 100% collar rate we expect parents to be able to police 40 rowdy kids that may have been drinking before they even arrived or smuggled something in their underwear.
Would you all be happier if the headline was, Local father arrested for strip searching 40 teenagers "I was just trying to make sure they weren't bringing alchohol to the party" was his only defense. Apparantly 68% of you would.
Well, the smart thing would have been not to invite 40 rowdy teenagers to his house...Two adults can't control that many teenagers. About 15 would have been manageable but pushing it.
With Sandusky in the public light would you even dare consider a physical search ? The parents are responsible to a point. In my view we have pushed liability to an extreme end of the ruler. In law school and moot court one of the measures was "would a reasonable man of ordinary prudence ....". That and contributary negligence seem to have fallen by the wayside.
Hwilson how do you know all 40 people were invited?
I hope all the parents that provide alcohol to teens in my new town watch this story. My daughter is invited to parties every weekend here where parents are providing the alcohol, charging cover or simply looking the other way as kids get waisted in the basement. I've never seen anything like it and I hope this scares a few of them. And i KNOW that some of those parents would say "we didn't know". Right?!!??!
What city is this?
And you are letting your daughter go to them?? Otherwise how do you know what's going on?? BS meter overloaded.
have to agree with the above... why the hell would you let your daughter go to these parties?
Parents notifying the local police department that their child was having a teenage party would solve much of this.
Police having common sense would solve this. Unfortunately our cops are uneducated robots these days. They are more worried about the latest swat gear then how to manage situations like this.
I think a stern talking too and a call to the drunk kids parents would have taught some life lessons to everyone.
This is clearly a set-up of the parents. Someone has decided they don't like the idea of this family allowing their child to have a party. The rules were clear and yet "suprise" a call goes to the police about drinking there with no other complaints being reported about the party. And then, "suprise again" the police go all the way and arrest the parents! Sounds too convenient of a "drinking problem" or a out of control party to be real. These poor folks were set up by someone in the community for some reason not related to the party is what I think!
There is not mention of alcohol being found in the house, just that some of the teens showed signs of being drunk. There is also no mention if test were done to prove/show that the teens were drunk.
Can you read?
"the music was too loud and the teens – celebrating the last football game of the season – got rowdy.".
I won't call the police if there are teens drinking in my neighbors house. But, if there is loud music or rowdiness such as throwing trash in the street or vandalizing property, then I WILL CALL THE POLICE.
The rule is: don't bother me and I won't bother you.
David,
I have read several accounts and this is the first time I read it was loud or rowdy. This is the quote from the police department. It doesn't say loud or that any alcohol was found. Thus far, other than editorializing in this article, that it was loud, outside, or any vandalizing. The Today Show coverage said they got an anonymous tip.
Police department spokeswoman Nicole Acker said the police were called in on a report of a "large party with possible underage drinking."
Police found teens "ages 16-17 years old displaying the signs of being under the influence of an alcoholic beverage," Acker said.
the parent was set up. their neighbor don't care that much about them. because a good neighbor comes over or call with their concerns. the Police should have never been called. As people sometime we waste police time with something we should be able to handle. Thank about it one call or a walk next door and we would have never heard about this.
I also wonder about what was done after the father was arrested. Since the family did not keep control over the situation and alcohol was found what did the police do to ensure that the children made it home safely? Were breathalyzer tests done for all children? What should parents do if they find a teen bringing alcohol? Call the police? Call the parent? I think the intent of the this law is to keep the community safe and I wonder did they do that if the children were not tested.
The law is not there to keep the community safe. Nice try. The law is there to uphold the law. Here's a tip for you. If you are being mugged and you need a cop to show up, try lighting up a doobie.
Beware of backpacks coming into your home!!!! We had a party for our 16 year old daughter. We said no alcohol, no drugs. We assured all parents that we would be there & checking on them....but we took it one step farther. NO backpacks or we'd search them.
Of course, we didn't know if we could legally do that, so we didn't. (Can we legally do that?) But since we found out from our kids that backpacks are the "sneakin'-in" vehicle, we have banned them. And our kids know that we can have a surprise search on theirs at any time.
What else can a parent do ...other than ban kids from our homes?? These kids need a safe place to hang out, but how can we keep it really safe?
If you have children of ages between 16 and 21, like I do, talk to your children... chances are they drink or get high at parties. And please, don't be a hypocrite, we all did it too.
Of course, I condemn underage drinking and the use of all drugs including tobacco (at all ages) In fact, I despise drug users.
But there's something terriby wrong with they way we handle acohol consumption in America. I don't know the answer but have you ever wonder why we lead the world in illegal-drug-consumption?
We live in a hypocritical society, preaching the "Do as I say, Not as I do" rule!
TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN and their friends; get the facts!
Good point. We must all remember that as we get older we do get wiser or at least come to understand the hazards of what we did as kids/teens. So we condemn what we did in our youth, that's called parenting. Yes your kids may do some of the things you did, and that's how they learn there are consequences for their actions.
Not EVERYONE has done drugs or drank alcohol. For me, the only time I've had alcohol was due to an accident, at a wedding, and didn't realize the orange juice had vodka in it. One sip, and that's all it took for me to stop drinking it. And I've never touched any kind of illegal drug. I have five kids of my own.
I also question the "need" for such teenage parties. Why are they acceptable and even promoted? There is no need for them. None. Parents that host them should ASSUME there will be some kind of trouble. Parents should also have ongoing discussions with teens BEFORE they are teens and beyond.
Ultimately, yes...parents should be responsible for what goes on here. They are the parents. Not just legally, but ethically and morally.
Of course I think parents should be responsible for making sure that underage kids aren't drinking in their home. But jailing people for it? Ridiculous.
I think it's so hypocritical that so many people demand such high levels of responsibility from parents/average citizens at the same time that we all accept completely corrupt behavior from so many of our elected officials at all levels of government, often with the full knowledge and complicity of their colleagues. Why aren't all THOSE people in jail?!?
We seem to have a two-tiered system of expectations of legal compliance in this country. One set for the average citizen and another set entirely for the ruling class. Why are average citizens being held to a higher standard than the people who make our laws and completely control our lives?
Oh definitely yes! Especially if they were home at the time. My parents always were around if friends were over and always at least said hi. I know some of my friend's neighbors who had parties and drunk teens would show up and the parents would either kick them out with their sober DD or call their parents or drive them home themselves. They never stood for any underage drinking. But they also always made sure the said drunk person got home safe.
Plus as much as we all love police (NOT or at least when they are giving us a ticket) I'm gonna have to say that they have seen enough drunks in their day to realize who is or isn't drunk. And as bad as it is, the dad here is the bigger ticket than an MIP.
Bottomline -- no matter how many laws are passed, and legislation enacted, teenagers are going to party and have sex. It's what teens do -- they sneak around and do things that are incredibly fun -- just like we all did when we were teenagers. So, the whole idea that parent's are responsible for kid's drinking or a 17 year old boy being criminally branded as a sex offender because he has sex with his 16 year girlfriend are inane. It is government run amok. If a teenager murders someone, you may say they were subject to bad parenting, but you would never haul the parents off to prison. Same has to be true for drinking.
Laura - right on the money. And the people who want the government out of business are the ones wanting government in our personal lives.
Read the story. THE PARENTS WERE PRESENT.
The kids were not off someplace else. It's not government run amok. It's parents refusing to be responsible for what goes on in their home WHILE THEY ARE THERE. Compared to what illiterate laurazz is talking about it's apples and oranges. Or intelligence and stupidity.