Sometimes I really despair that we seem to live in this "government enforced nanny state" and other times I can understand, to an extent, why the government are doing our job for us.

Child curfews are something that I have not made my mind up about. In one way, they seem to be an insult to any decent parent. How dare the government do our job! How can they decide that they know what is best for our child? How can they treat and judge each child the same? Each child is an individual and develops at a different rate. Some ten year olds may be completely different to others. Surely it is our job, as parents, to make the call, on what our child can/cannot do, with regards to their level of maturity and sense of responsibility. We are the people who know them the best.

I have an eight year old daughter, who is old for her years. She has always been this way and has proven herself to be trustworthy and reliable a great deal. Then, I have a nine year old lad, who is more like a six year old. He is just not mature for his age.

We have "family rules" that each child is expected to keep to. But, each of my children has slightly different limits to another, this is dependant on age, the building up of trust, proving themselves and showing maturity. They are all so different. Some need more sleep than others; some can be trusted to go to the shop, some … NO WAY! This is where clearly a parent knows best, not the government.

Another argument against child curfews is why should any mature, responsible child be restricted by the government, to a curfew, when they don't need it? Surely it is an insult to them? Does this mean that no matter how good their behaviour is, the government are not going to trust them? Are they going to end up thinking well then, what's the point of behaving, if I am restricted, due to the poor behaviour of others? Would Child Curfews cause normally well behaved children to rebel, as there is clearly little incentive for them to behave?

But then there are cases of kids, under the age of sixteen, who are out on the streets, running riot, in the small hours of the morning. Where are the parents?! I can not comprehend willingly letting any child of mine under sixteen, out after midnight! They are still children for goodness sake and mature for their age or not, by then, they should be tucked up in their beds counting zzzzzzz's.

We could do what we do now. That is to impose a child curfew on those who offend and end up in court. But by then, surely it’s a little too late? By then, some poor soul has ended up with their car torched or their property damaged. Or even worse, somebody has ended up injured or attacked by a drunken youth. We might argue that prevention is better in the long run. The only way then would be to impose an overall child curfew, rather than an individual one, like we do now.

If some parents are not doing their job and protecting their children, then surely it is time for the government to step in a do something. We are forever complaining that this country is too soft. Society needs protecting and these kids also need protecting from themselves. So where do we draw the line? Would child curfews reduce youth crime rates? Would they reduce teen alchohol and drug abuse?

What do you think?