Using porn as a guide for The Talk: criminal, stupid, or brilliant?

This morning, on my walk, I listened to an NPR story about a father, his two daughters, and Internet pornography.

I'll include a few salient quotes from the article, but I highly suggest you read the entire piece (it's a short easy read).

"[Crystal] Buckner says her daughter had told the counselor that late one night at her father's house, he'd shown his daughters pornography on a computer.

"When he called them over, it was a live webcam of a woman by herself and Daddy was typing to her what to do," Buckner says.

The live webcam action was followed by exhibitions of other online video pornography. The pornography was all adult. The girls reported that their father, Crystal's former husband, Jack A. Buckner II, said he was showing them the pornography because sex was something they needed to know about."

As parents, we can all relate to the general concept of "whew, that was a mistake" along with "not the best approach." We all err as parents, and our children have to deal with the fact that we are mere humans. The idea is to do our best to mitigate and minimize our mistakes, learn from them, and more importantly, think it through especially in big moments like this.

As parents, I seriously doubt we can relate to a father thinking a live Internet porn show, in which he was participating, is a good way to educate two young daughters about sex.

"Jack Buckner II declined to comment about the case. His current wife, Jennifer Buckner, told NPR the exhibition was a one-time occurrence. She said her husband knew the next day he'd made a mistake attempting to educate his young daughters by using computer pornography."

Good.

Still.

It leads to questions: with such a colossal lack of judgement, what else has he done? And what was impairing his judgment on this occasion? Was it an impulse? Was he engaged in Internet porn, and upon being discovered by his daughters, impulsively decided to turn this into a Teaching Moment? Or did he plan it? Was it a cover up? In short, what in the world...?

I have an eight year old. She is very curious, especially about the human body, particularly about differences between male and female human bodies. She has asked questions, but I have learned to ask her what she wants to know before launching into something way beyond what she needs, and past what she can process.

She has also walked in while I am watching a show I consider "not suitable for children." In my case, this means a crime solving television program that contains what I think of as violence or scary parts that could frighten or worry a child. I pause the show. If she asks a question, I try to answer on a practicality, with mention it's a grown-up program and fake.

I believe in honesty with kids, but with that huge, weighty caveat: as is age-appropriate.

Under no circumstances do I think live action Internet porn qualifies.

I realize I am a very Thinky Mom and have probably written an entire script prior to opening my mouth, but I also feel confident most parents will agree with me on this: that was a tremendously stupid thing for that dad to do.

The father, Jack Buckner, has full custody of the girls. The porn incident came to light, though, when their biological mother took them to see a therapist because the eight year old had been acting out.

"Crystal Buckner was waiting in a therapist's office last summer for her 8-year-old daughter to finish a session. The child had been having behavior problems — anger, acting out. At the end of this session, the therapist came in looking grim.

"The counselor put the kids in one room and called me into her office and said, 'Crystal, you need to sit down,' " Buckner recalls. Buckner's other daughters were there for counseling, too.

Buckner says her daughter had told the counselor that late one night at her father's house, he'd shown his daughters pornography on a computer.

. . .

The girls kept it secret for months, but the 8-year-old eventually told her therapist — and after informing Crystal Buckner, that therapist called child protective services in northern Texas."

This is the point at which it gets very tricky.

I strongly believe the therapist was right to call child protective services and ask them to investigate. A father who will show his daughters live Internet porn, in which he was participating, needs to be checked out. That action is too far past reasonable parental judgment.

I confess my perspective is subjective. However, in this case, letting CPS make the call of "okay" or "actionable" was wise and right.

But what do you think, and why?

As it happens, CPS did decide it warranted investigation. They referred it to Randall County District Attorney James Farren.

"It is not illegal to possess adult pornography," he says. "It is not illegal to look at adult pornography regardless of how we may feel about it morally or philosophically."

But Farren wanted to prosecute the father. The Texas penal code allows prosecution of anyone who sells or shows harmful material to a minor. And the law stipulates that pornography is considered harmful. The law was written in 1973, but it came with one important caveat, Farren says: It doesn't allow prosecution when the child was accompanied by a consenting parent or guardian.

In this case, not only was the minor accompanied by a parent during the exhibition, but the parent was the exhibitor. Nevertheless, Farren says he was willing to take his chances with a West Texas jury anyway. But there was a hitch.

"If the judge is made aware of that, I won't even get to a jury," he says. "He'll give me an instructed verdict."

I agree with this: it was stupid, and bad enough to warrant CPS investigation to ensure the three girls were not in danger, but I do not think it was criminally stupid. Buckner needs some education, and support to make a better choice in how to educate his daughters about sexual topics.

However, he does not need to be prosecuted. Far better, I think, to provide access to parenting tips and help. Most importantly, I think the government needs to respect parental decisions and privacy. District attorneys need to understand, as frustrating as it can be, that stupid, poor choices, and even acting like a jerk and creep are not per se against the law. Moreover, that doesn't per se mean the law needs to be changed, as DA Farren would like.

District Attorney Farren knows that in conservative West Texas, people are wary of aggressive government intrusion into matters that could be seen as private.

But he says his constituents are disgusted by the case, and so is he.

I'm disgusted too, but let's be clear: what disgusts me doesn't mean illegal, and it also doesn't mean someone ought to be in jail. Not only is that not always the most constructive response, it may not even be the right one.

George Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas, is less enthusiastic about the state's putting itself in the middle of this situation.

"It may be impossible to define with precision what a parent should be permitted ... to provide to a child in the course of 'the talk,' " he says.

Dix says cases like this one speak to the issue of parental intent: Was the father really trying to educate the girls, or was it sinister? Educational intent is also a defense under Texas law. This can be a tricky area for a prosecutor to wander around in.

I don't think prosecutors need to be wandering around in this quite so much. We need to be cautious about letting moral outrage overtake our comprehension of legally criminal. This was poor judgment, but were the girls in imminent danger, permanent harm?

That's the current question as DA Farren pursues another line of prosecution.

Farren is unhappy with the language in the Texas penal code. So he has charged the father with a different crime — child endangerment, a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. To get a conviction, Farren will have to prove the father put his daughters in "imminent danger of mental impairment" by showing them pornography. It may be a long shot, the D.A. says, but he's going to try.

Does this father belong in jail, with a conviction?

The girls' mother at the least doesn't believe he deserves to be the custodial parent any longer and has sued for a change in custody.

Without knowing either of the parents, more information, how the initial arrangement came to be and why, or any other relevant details, it's hard to say whether a custody change would be best.

It's hard to even know whether there is more to the story, or whether the father has a history of situations like this.

On the merits we do know, though, it seems to me that there is little to support a sinister intent, and therefore, the DA needs to let this one go...and find a more constructive solution.

EDITED TO ADD: Devra of Parentopia just posted a great guide about the hows, whens, whys and whats of reporting to CPS. I highly recommend it.