With the American Civil Liberties Union vigorously protesting, an appeals court in the District of Columbia has ruled that Washington, DC can impose a curfew on children under the age of 17. The 11 p.m. curfew had been enacted to restrict the movements of teenagers in the nation's capital because of the threat to the general public and the safety of the children as well. And I say three cheers for the enactment of those restrictions.

Arguing that the curfew interfered with the way parents could raise their children, the ACLU has really missed the mark again. When there is an absence of parental supervision, teenagers turn into weapons of their own destruction¬not to speak of the terror some late night gangs bring to a neighborhood.

My own community is not immune to senseless acts of vandalism by teenagers whose parents have abdicated their responsibilities. While walking with my wife, we could not help but notice that street sign after street sign had been twisted or torn from light poles. Most of the signs were too high to be reached by someone acting alone. It took more than one person to carry out these acts of vandalism. While a far cry from robbery, molestation and assault, the necessity for a curfew in Washington and the destruction of street signs in my neighborhood both flow from a lack of parental responsibility and the attitudes of our children.

In the court decision, relating to the Washington, DC curfew, the judges clearly held that parental rights to rear children do not extend to the streets late at night. Parental responsibility does end where the rights of the public for safety and security begin. There is no reason for adults to fear the streets because of unruly children who are out of control.

While visiting Washington earlier this week on business, I had the opportunity to talk to a number of people about their personal views on the curfew. An African-American cab driver did not like the idea of the curfew, but clearly stated that young people are out of control in the district. Others felt, as does the ACLU, that a curfew interferes with parental rights. Those supporting the curfew felt that the parental failure to supervise children justified keeping kids off the streets late at night. Most applauded the decision.

If you have ever encountered, late at night, an unruly gang of teenagers in any community, you know the concern which led to the curfew enactment. For some reason, the unsupervised group mentality tends to make them rude and not very nice¬and it has nothing to do with race. While our local communities are not close to the conditions in DC, there certainly could be a great deal more parental control over the actions of teenage children. "It is 10 p.m., do you know where your child is?"