PDA

View Full Version : Mom Gets Probeation For Having Explicitly Educational Sex Talk With Sons



Scott
11-11-2007, 12:54 AM
A Pardeeville mother accepted a plea agreement on charges she had a sexually explicit discussion with her two sons, even while she maintained she did nothing wrong and that she didn't understand why she was charged.

Amy J. Smalley, 36, said in court Thursday that she accepted the plea agreement in part because she thought it would be in the best interest of her sons, ages 12 and 16, in that it would spare them from testifying in court.

"I think this is what I'm going to have to do to make everyone happy," she said.

According to the charges filed against her, Smalley last year told her sons about several sexual experiences she had. She also allegedly described performing oral sex and also showed the two a sex toy.

"That is what I'm being charged with, but that is not what I did," Smalley said. "I believe I'm not guilty."

Smalley's attorneys unsuccessfully argued in court in July that the charges should be dismissed as the discussions should be protected as free speech between a parent and her children in the vein of sexual education.

Smalley said the charges were filed after she brought her sons to counseling in an attempt to help them from getting into trouble. One of her sons told authorities he did not think the discussion was appropriate.

"This whole thing's been like a nightmare for me and I can't understand it," she said.

In the agreement, Smalley pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of exposing a child to harmful material in exchange for the dismissal of a felony charge of exposing a child to harmful descriptions.

Columbia County Circuit Court Judge James Miller accepted the agreement and sentenced Smalley to a year of probation in addition to counseling ? following the recommendation of Assistant District Attorney Crystal Long.

The felony charge could have levied a sentence of more than three years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

If the trial moved forward, Smalley's sons almost surely would have been required to testify.

"That would cause a great deal of additional pain and discomfort," Maura Melka, Smalley's attorney, said. "This is an internal family matter. ... Having the children testify would just be so hard."

link (http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news/255942)


"This is an internal family matter."

Is it now? I think it's no longer all internal.

DeadCell
11-11-2007, 05:57 AM
A parent who actually gives the child a thorough sex talk and this is what she gets.

Toxic
11-11-2007, 05:57 AM
A parent who actually gives the child a thorough sex talk and this is what she gets.

There's a difference between showing a kid your sex toys, talking about the blow jobs you've given, and talking to them about sex; just like there's a difference between showing your kid your meth needle and talking about drugs.

Ghost
11-11-2007, 06:16 AM
that's horrible.

my mother never told me her experiences!

Monkeyboy
11-11-2007, 07:10 AM
My dear lord, this is why Strippers should not pro-create anymore!!!!!!

Seriously, this whole issue needs to be settled out of court in a settlement so the Judge can go take a nap. This is the stupidest court case I've ever seen, and if she is damaging the kids, the kids need to choose to go to their dad's until they can handle this embarrassment.

That's all it is, an embarrassment.

Mr Cool
11-11-2007, 07:11 AM
Had my children ragged on me they'd definitely be some probeating going on

Cov3rt
11-11-2007, 07:12 AM
Had my children ragged on me they'd definitely be some probeating going on

That's all this is, this looks nothing more than like a lawyer deciding to attack this poor ol' lady for some money.

And the kids wanted in on the money, lawyer gave out treats.

Messed up as she is, its the kids choice where they live not the lawyer's and not the governments. Give it up and just drop this case like a rock.