Teenage drinking

Maybe there's something to be said for responsible drinking at home. Perhaps that would prevent the kids from feeling they need to get blasted when they're out with their friends.

Examining parents' role in teen drinking
Residents in North Shore suburbs seek ways to prevent another alcohol-related tragedy.

By Andrew L. Wang | Tribune staff reporter
July 23, 2007

The conviction last week of a Deerfield couple for permitting underage drinking in their home left some in the North Shore village and nearby communities wondering what's next for themselves and their children.

All agree that the deaths of Daniel Bell and Ross Trace, both 18 and both guests at Jeffrey and Sara Hutsell's home the night the teens died in a car crash, were tragic. But after they learned more from the Hutsells' trial about the night the teens died, several parents said they are now focused on finding solutions for the seemingly intractable problem of teenage drinking and how to save lives before it's too late.

"Our kids have been educated almost ad nauseam through DARE and other programs about drinking and drugs," said Vicki Ettelson, who attended the trial and has a 16-year-old son at Deerfield High School. "We feel it's time to offer solutions and strategies [to parents] to combat teenage drinking."

Parents must be part of the solution because, as was shown in the Hutsell case, some of them are part of the problem, Ettelson said. The Hutsells and their attorneys could not be reached for comment on Sunday.

A Lake County jury Saturday found the Hutsells, both 53, knew 20 to 30 teens were drinking alcohol in their basement and did nothing to stop it. The couple also were convicted of endangering the life of a child and lying to police investigating the crash, but they were acquitted of a count of destroying evidence. Their sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 11.

Trace and Bell both were at the party at the home in the 700 block of Summit Drive with the Hutsells' son, Jonathan Tyler Hutsell. According to testimony by several teens, Bell and Trace and three other friends got in Bell's car and left the party after they became afraid they would get caught smoking marijuana by Jeffrey Hutsell.

Shortly afterward, the car slammed into a tree, killing Trace. Bell died a short time later. Tests showed that Bell had a blood-alcohol level of 0.132, well above the legal limit for adults of 0.08, and that Trace had smoked marijuana before he died.

In Deerfield, the shock of the accident remains strong, said Ettelson, who heads the parent-education subcommittee for Positive Adult Responsibility Eliminates Negative Teenage Situations, or PARENTS. The group, a coalition of parents of students at Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools, was formed last year after a community forum on teen drinking.

Ettelson said she hears parents say they feel powerless in the face of a seemingly insurmountable problem.

"It's operating on the assumption that [drinking] occurs, and there's not a lot we as parents can do about it," she said.

Instead, Ettelson said, parents need to know "it's OK to say no."

Marla Forbes, whose 17-year-old son attends Highland Park High School, said she agreed with the verdict, but she wondered what could be done to ensure other parents learned from the Hutsells' mistakes.

"If [the Hutsells] had to share their stories, once a week with different schools or with other parents, just to let them know how guilty they feel ... it might be more effective," she said. "These people's lives are ruined. ...If there's some way to make people understand that, to me that has more value than a prison sentence."

Laws that hold parents criminally responsible for allowing underage drinking in their homes are becoming more prevalent, said James Mosher, director of the Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy in Felton, Calif.

While he agreed that there should be serious consequences if parents sanction underage drinking that leads to injury or death, the true answer to the problem will come from a "shift of societal norms" so parents are empowered to not tolerate teen drinking, said Mosher, whose organization analyzes legal policy related to alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

Criminalization of parents isn't the most effective deterrent, he said. Civil ordinances that impose financial penalties send a more immediate message, Mosher said.

"As a homeowner, you have to protect the community, you have to protect your neighborhood," he said. "If you fail to meet that duty, then a civil fine is due or you can be liable for fees. ...It's a much more clear and direct message."

Robert Johnson, chair of the American Bar Association's criminal law section, agreed hitting parents with criminal charges and levying stiffer sentences may not be the best preventive measure.

"Oftentimes, the criminalization is what legislators think is the easy answer," said Johnson, who is also county attorney for Anoka County, Minn. But in criminal proceedings, the path can be more arduous, as prosecutors must present evidence that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, he said.

Ettelson's take on the Hutsell case, from being in the courtroom as more than a dozen teens who were at the party were called to the witness stand, was that the jury made the right decision.

But beyond issues of guilt, the trial dredged up painful memories for all involved.

"Part of what were so sad was that all these kids had to live through it again," Ettelson said. "It brought all these emotions to the surface."

-----------

[email protected]

I'm torn on this. I do think parents have a certain responsibility to their children and to any children who are visiting. But I have to wonder, in the original story, were any of the kids charged with underage drinking? Are we postponing adult responsibility for teenagers by charging the parents? If so why and for how much longer?

I'm torn on this. I do think parents have a certain responsibility to their children and to any children who are visiting. But I have to wonder, in the original story, were any of the kids charged with underage drinking? Are we postponing adult responsibility for teenagers by charging the parents? If so why and for how much longer?