Aqua
11-13-2007, 08:47 PM
(SF)
By Mallory Simon
Court TV
Amy Smalley thought she was being a good parent when she taught her children about sex.
Smalley told her children, ages 11 and 15, about her own sexual experiences, explained how to perform oral sex and even showed them a sex toy she owned.
Smalley called it education. Prosecutors called it a crime.
Prosecutors in Columbia County, Wis., charged Smalley Feb. 19 with exposing children to harmful descriptions, a felony crime that carries a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Smalley's lawyer attempted to get the case thrown out, saying that sex education was protected free speech, but a Columbia County judge disagreed and sent the case to trial.
On Thursday, Smalley pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation and ordered to attend counseling. She agreed to the plea to prevent her children from having to testify, Smalley told the Portage Daily Register.
In a motion to dismiss the case, Columbia County Public Defender Mark Gumz claimed that Smalley's discussion with her children fell under the umbrella of parental free speech.
"Ms. Smalley would be within her rights as a parent to educate her children in such a manner as she sees fit ... even if the state feels it improper," Gumz wrote.
The state, Gumz said, does not have the right to decide what parents can teach their children about sex.
"Health classes are a part of modern school curriculum, and President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have forever changed the vernacular of the American public," he wrote.
Columbia County Assistant District Attorney Crystal Long could not be reached for comment.
Gumz argued that, because Smalley's children were 11 and 15, they were near or at the age of puberty, making it acceptable for their mother to explain sex to them. But, according to the criminal complaint, the younger son objected. The boy told a counselor about the discussion and, when asked by police, said he preferred that his mother "keep that kind of information personal," according to the criminal complaint.
"This whole thing's been like a nightmare for me and I can't understand it," Smalley told the Daily Register after the plea.
Rev. Debra Haffner, a sexuality educator and director of the The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, said she was surprised to learn that Smalley had spoken to her son about specific sexual history, calling it "highly unusual."
"It's not smart parenting, but certainly not actionable," she said.
Haffner, the former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, reinforced the importance of parents speaking with their children about sex, saying children need to hear the information from their parents, but she said the level of detail makes a difference.
"Parents may say, 'Oral sex is when you put your mouth on another person's genitals,'" Haffner said. "But, if you go into technique with your kids, saying 'Sometimes it feels good if you do this' ... I think there is a level of description that could be too much."
A main point made by Smalley's attorneys in arguing for the case to be dropped was that the law used to prosecute her was intended to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, and not meant for parents talking about sex with their kids.
"This was not some stranger who was telling children sordid stories for sexual gratification and titillation," Gumz said in his motion.
By Mallory Simon
Court TV
Amy Smalley thought she was being a good parent when she taught her children about sex.
Smalley told her children, ages 11 and 15, about her own sexual experiences, explained how to perform oral sex and even showed them a sex toy she owned.
Smalley called it education. Prosecutors called it a crime.
Prosecutors in Columbia County, Wis., charged Smalley Feb. 19 with exposing children to harmful descriptions, a felony crime that carries a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Smalley's lawyer attempted to get the case thrown out, saying that sex education was protected free speech, but a Columbia County judge disagreed and sent the case to trial.
On Thursday, Smalley pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation and ordered to attend counseling. She agreed to the plea to prevent her children from having to testify, Smalley told the Portage Daily Register.
In a motion to dismiss the case, Columbia County Public Defender Mark Gumz claimed that Smalley's discussion with her children fell under the umbrella of parental free speech.
"Ms. Smalley would be within her rights as a parent to educate her children in such a manner as she sees fit ... even if the state feels it improper," Gumz wrote.
The state, Gumz said, does not have the right to decide what parents can teach their children about sex.
"Health classes are a part of modern school curriculum, and President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have forever changed the vernacular of the American public," he wrote.
Columbia County Assistant District Attorney Crystal Long could not be reached for comment.
Gumz argued that, because Smalley's children were 11 and 15, they were near or at the age of puberty, making it acceptable for their mother to explain sex to them. But, according to the criminal complaint, the younger son objected. The boy told a counselor about the discussion and, when asked by police, said he preferred that his mother "keep that kind of information personal," according to the criminal complaint.
"This whole thing's been like a nightmare for me and I can't understand it," Smalley told the Daily Register after the plea.
Rev. Debra Haffner, a sexuality educator and director of the The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, said she was surprised to learn that Smalley had spoken to her son about specific sexual history, calling it "highly unusual."
"It's not smart parenting, but certainly not actionable," she said.
Haffner, the former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, reinforced the importance of parents speaking with their children about sex, saying children need to hear the information from their parents, but she said the level of detail makes a difference.
"Parents may say, 'Oral sex is when you put your mouth on another person's genitals,'" Haffner said. "But, if you go into technique with your kids, saying 'Sometimes it feels good if you do this' ... I think there is a level of description that could be too much."
A main point made by Smalley's attorneys in arguing for the case to be dropped was that the law used to prosecute her was intended to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, and not meant for parents talking about sex with their kids.
"This was not some stranger who was telling children sordid stories for sexual gratification and titillation," Gumz said in his motion.