Of course, setting a curfew to the teenager's satisfaction is hard to do, because a curfew limits social freedom. Often there are two curfews: for the school night and for when school is not in session. The second is most frequently contested. "Why,' asks the teenager, "can't I stay out later on weekend nights? There's nothing bad that can happen to me at 1:00 in the morning that can't happen to me at 11:00 at night?"

This argument is true and false. True: being out on the earlier curfew is no absolute protection against harm that can happen when returning home at the later time. But false in this: The later you are out, the more you are exposed to people are fatigued, who are celebrating, who are drug or alcohol affected, who are more inclined to social violence, who are more likely to have a fatal car accident. "Eighteen percent of fatal crashes during the day are alcohol-related, while 54% of crashes at night are alcohol-related." (Forbes.com, 01/21/09.) So the parental message to teenagers pressing for a later curfew is that they must commit to staying mindful of the higher risks by agreeing to keep their sober wits about them.

A curfew not only protects a teenager from exposure to late night risks, but it also protects her from responsibility. It relieves the young person from having to make a social decision about when to leave the party because the time of return has already been decided. Now she can save face and escape peer pressure by blaming her departure on overprotective parents.

A curfew is usually a contract in four parts. Part one is the agreed upon time of return. Part two is the information parents need to know. For example: "Where are you going, how will you travel, who will be your companions, and what do you expect to be doing? When plans or circumstances change, you will let us know, and you will wake us when you return so we know you are home safe." Part three is accessibility to communication: "You will answer your cell phone promptly should we find it necessary to call or text." Part four is managing later night out freedom without troubling or harmful incident. The more faithfully the teenager keeps the curfew contract, the more curfew freedom the teenager is likely to get.

Adolescents have a higher tolerance of nocturnal risks, or more denial of them, than do parents who are in the business of setting a safe curfew, because that is what a curfew is - a safety limit that moderates exposure to late night dangers.

For the teenager, one problem with a parental curfew is that is not rationally set. After all, it's hard to come up with a logical "reason" to justify being home by 11:30 instead of 12:30. What really justifies the difference is emotional: parental comfort, or what one mother explained was keeping the teenager within her "worry wall."

"‘Worry wall?' What is that about?" demanded the teenager.

"I need to keep you walled in enough at night so I don't go to frantic with worry about what could happen if you're out too late. So really, the curfew is probably as much for my own peace of mind as it is for your safety. A curfew sets my tolerance for how late I can stand having you away from home at night."

To which the high school senior responded in outrage: "Why should your fear limit my freedom? You're not protecting me for my sake; you're protecting me for your sake! That's not fair! In less than a year I'll be living away from home setting my own curfew, and you won't know what my hours are then. So why not let me learn to set my own schedule now?"

The teenager's suggestion can be a good one. Negotiating a flexible curfew senior year in high school can train him to responsibly manage increased social independence soon to come. Young people who are too tightly structured at home senior year are more likely to burst out and abuse their newfound freedom when they leave. Going "college crazy," for example, they run wild with freedom freshman year (up all night and sleeping days) until, from facing probationary consequences, they have to adequately "curfew" their social freedom or risk being expelled.

Then of course there are a few late adolescents, maybe 17 years old or so, who want to live at home but feel entitled to throw off all the traces by rejecting any parental curfew: "I'll stay out as late as I like overnight if I want to, and you can't stop me!" To which statement of defiance, parents wisely agree. "That's right. We're running a home, not a prison; but a home still has rules. You are free to ignore our curfew; that is up to you. But we are obliged to enforce it; that is our responsibility."

And then they explain how "grounding out" will work. Different from grounding in (and limiting social freedom), grounding out (and limiting residency) is explained to an older adolescent like this.

"Should you decide to miss your curfew, when you return the home will be locked against you for 12 hours, beginning when we start our day. Leaving is up to you; but when you are allowed back in is up to us. Now you must make your own arrangements to stay elsewhere, unable to come back and use anything or get anything you need until the day away is over. Then you can call us, and at our convenience we will agree to meet with you at a neutral place where we will explain the hours you need to keep in order to live with us. You can choose to commit to meet our curfew or not. Should you decide to come home and then break curfew again, the waiting period before return, will be 24 hours, a third time 48 hours, and so on. Of course we'll miss you and wish you were at home with the family, but as you said how late you stay out is ultimately up to you."

I've only seen a few parents do this over this years, but it has mostly proved effective.

For more about freedom and teenagers, see my book, "The Connected Father." Information at: www.carlpickhardt.com

Next week's entry (by request): How Divorce impacts Young Children Compared with Adolescents