DS1 (aged 13 and 3 weeks) knows that if he is out he needs to be back by the time it gets dark. This is not negotiable and he knows it. Last weekend he missed his curfew and was grounded for 7 days. Today I lifted his grounding 2 days early as he had been exceptionally well behaved and very helpful during the week.
This afternoon he went out with his friends. He was not home before dark, in fact he did not get home until a good 40 minutes after it was dark. His Dad and I both tried to ring him but he switched both of us to Voicemail. H was at home but I wasn't, and Ds1 knew this. We both sent him texts to ask where he was, and mine included the information that, as he was late again, he was grounded for 2 weeks. He replied to H that he was "across the road" and to me "I'm at (Friend)'s house though". He arrived home about 10 minutes after the texts were sent, by which time I was back so H and I were both in together, and he launched into a tirade about how I was being unreasonable to ground him again as a) he was "only at (Friend)'s house" and b) it is perfectly OK to walk around in the dark as he knows our town well and knows it's safe
.
I say the 2 week grounding stands as a) he knows the rule and he decided to break it by staying out after dark, b) "across the road" could mean quite a big area, especially in teenager-speak, c) his Dad doesn't know where "(Friend)'s house" is and Ds1 knows that, d) it is not safe for a 13 year old boy to walk around on his own in the dark, especially when wearing all black clothing and an attitude.
Ds1 thinks I am being unduly harsh and launched a screamy protest in the style of a toddler, stamping upstairs and bellowing a la Horrid Henry. Apparently I am the only parent in the world who would insist on being in before dark and grounding him for what is "merely" a second offence.
I have decided to throw it open to the Court of Mumsnet to determine who is being unreasonable here.