Mother arrested for giving son condoms
----------
by Sharif Durhams
A mother who bought her 13-year-old son condoms could be imprisoned for 15 years and fined $10,000. When she told police that she could not stop him from having sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, they charged her with failing to prevent him from being sexually abused -- a felony.

from - http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan01/condom15011401a.asp

DA prosecutes mom who gave son condoms

Baraboo parent didn't protect boy, 13, from abuse, charge alleges

By SHARIF DURHAMS
of the Journal Sentinel staff

Last Updated: Jan. 14, 2001

You find out your teenage son is having sex. So what do you do? Do you try to stop him? Do you protect
him by buying him condoms? Do you talk to him about it? Do you tell a priest? Guidance counselors? The
police?

A 33-year-old Baraboo mother bought her son condoms, and could face up to 15 years in prison and a
$10,000 fine because Sauk County prosecutors think she made the wrong decision.

Because she told police she did not stop her 13-year-old son from having oral sex and sexual intercourse
with his 15-year-old girlfriend, prosecutors allege, the mother failed to prevent her child from being
sexually abused - and that's a felony.

Prosecutors and the mother's attorneys have until February to finish filing briefs before Sauk County Judge
Guy Reynolds in the case, and a court date probably will be set then if the case is not dismissed.

Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett said no one in her office
would comment on the case. But the mother's attorney, Derek Horkan of
Reedsburg, argues that talking to your child about sex is constitutionally
protected speech that can't be restricted by state laws.

"The prosecutor in this case, what her position is, is taking the statute
beyond its intended meaning," said Horkan, who said his research has not
turned up a similar case that went to trial in Wisconsin.

According to the criminal complaint:

The case came to the attention of police last May when the boy, a Baraboo
Middle School student, told an officer that he was worried that he had a
sexually transmitted disease. He said he had had sex with his girlfriend the
previous day and had heard through friends that she had such a sexually
transmitted disease.

The boy also told the officer that his mother knew he was sexually active
and had even purchased condoms for him, telling him to "make sure it
doesn't break" during intercourse.

Police talked to the mother five days later and she confirmed that she had
bought her son two dozen condoms a few months before. And although she didn't keep track of them, she
had discovered days before that there was only one left.

When asked why she allowed the boy to continue to engage in sex, the mother told police that her son was
too young to "understand that sex should come with love."

She also said she never told the boy to stop having sex and never contacted police or social service
officials to get help in dealing with the boy. Police swore out a complaint against the mother three months
later.

The Journal Sentinel is not identifying the woman to protect the identity of her son.

The purpose of the law

The crime with which she is charged is one of a flurry of laws amended by the state Legislature in 1988 in
an attempt to consolidate all the laws about the abuse of children under one section. The law was amended
because legislators were concerned that while someone who commits an assault would be prosecuted, a
parent who knows the abuse is going on but fails to report it might not get in trouble, said Ken Streit, a
University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor who deals in juvenile law.

Streit said it's rare in cases in which two minors have sex for any prosecution to occur.

"If you have two 15-year-olds having sex with each other, I haven't heard of people prosecuting them,"
Streit said.

"The purpose of the law was to protect in situations where, say, you had a live-in boyfriend and the live-in
boyfriend was messing with the kid, and the mom knew about that," he said.

Streit said the prosecution might have trouble proving that the mom could have done something to stop her
son from having sex. She could have reported, say, a live-in boyfriend who was abusing her son or kicked
him out of the house. But in this case, Streit argued, she would have to either follow her son all the time or
she would have to keep him from leaving the house.

Early teens are crucial

Whether the judge or a jury ends up agreeing with the prosecutors or the mother, those in the business of
providing sex education say children in their early teens are old enough to know about sex and its
consequences.

"If you wait until they're 14 and older . . . you've missed a lot of your teachable moments," said Jennifer
Anderson, curriculum development coordinator for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

"I hope that most adults would say to 13-year-olds that this isn't a good idea," said Scott Spear, an
assistant professor of pediatrics in UW-Madison's medical school. But he added that young people around
that age might start having sex. And parents or some other authority figure should talk to them about it.

He cited the example of an older teenager that he was advising. She told him about her sexual escapades,
and he listened. After a few visits, he confronted her. But instead of telling her she shouldn't have sex, he
asked her "are you really having fun" doing this.

Soon afterward, he got an elated phone call from the teenage girl, who said that she had considered having
sex that night, but she realized she really didn't want to. She went home, and she immediately called him.

"We meet them where they are and help them to make decisions they want to be making."

Anderson agreed that young teenagers might be too young to deal with the emotional consequences of sex.
And talking with them about those consequences might prevent them from doing it, she said.

"The more information a child has, the less likely they are to make poor decisions," she said.