The folks who are ready to diagnose this child as a future psychopath might want to consider that all the evidence here is hearsay. Listen rather to the "statements against penal interest" of the parents:

1) The child is asserted to be sixteen and in 9th grade. This is at least one, more likely two grades behind. Why? It is significant that the parents didn't think it important enough to say, since if this was perceived to be the child's fault it clearly would have been added to the pile. So the parents held the child back in school. Maybe simply forgot to register her for kindergarten when the time came?

2) The child's stated offenses (staying out late, yelling, not calling) are well within the bounds of normal teen behavior. Not to be ignored, but certainly no cause for panic.

3) The parents acknowledge that the child is capable of being "sweet as pie". This assertion is clearly meant as evidence of egregious wrong, rather than something to celebrate.

4) The parents wonder how the child represents them to others. Almost certainly the child avoids any discussion of her parents entirely. More to the point, why should a parent care more about the representation of a daughter's feelings to others than about the genesis of those feelings in the first place?

5) They lock her out of her own house (it certainly doesn't warrant being called a "home"). Perhaps all day on weekends. This is sufficient cause to call child protective services. God bless the neighbors for opening their doors to this literally homeless child.

6) She assiduously seeks ways to be with her boyfriend. Is this supposed to be surprising behavior for a teenager? A wise parent might choose to make an immediate appointment at Planned Parenthood for the obvious precautions.

7) The parents are angry. Also not surprising. But the parents ascribe this solely to the child's behavior. They take no responsibility for engendering that behavior by their actions. They lack a sense of proportion (or the common sense God granted a turnip).

8) The parents want to "emancipate" the child (wash their hands of all responsibility) - and have apparently told the child this. Also reason to call CPS. A child can seek emancipation from her parents. If a parent does this it is called abandonment.

9) This child - freakishly out of control - uses neither drugs or alcohol, but rather likes to watch TV and fish with neighborhood friends. O tempora o mores!

10) She has no job. (She's 16.) She has no skills. (She's been held back 1-2 years in school.) No mention of her grades in school. Can't be too bad or this fault-finding parent would have mentioned. College aspirations? Community college? Trade school? Not a whisper of parental planning for the future.

So what do the parents NOT say? For one thing, there is no mention of chores. Either the child does them promptly and well - or perhaps it never occurred to the parents to ask her to help around the house? Why then should she be invested in the "house rules"? If you treat your child as a guest (an inconvenient guest at that), don't expect respect for externally imposed rules.

The parents are also silent on community resources - extended family, church, girl scouts, even local parks & rec programs? The only time the girl gets out of the house apparently is when she is locked out.

The parents says the child is nasty (to them). I wonder where she learned it? It is perhaps a sign of hope that the parents are seeking advice. The letter as written, however, is an exercise in delusion and self-justification.

Cary's advise here is good (as always) about relationships, but as a non-parent his insight may be lacking a few of the necessary dimensions. Presumably there was some thought of handling these "out of control" parents with kid gloves. The family (assuming the hearsay has any connection to reality) needs to seek professional help - family counseling, a clinic for the daughter, educational and career planning.

A far more entertaining feature would be to put a liberal in the dunk tank and to read letters from conservatives. Make sure it's an actual liberal - not just an actor who plays one on TV.

Really though - consider the gedanken experiment. First of all, I presume you were unable to find any conservatives whatsoever who were willing to use their real names. I doubt you could find a liberal who would be willing to remain anonymous.

Here's a question to start: "Why are liberals supportive of President Obama as he protects Bush administration war criminals?"

Or actually - that's a pretty good question for a strict constructionist conservative, too.

Hint - real liberals are not supportive, only the ersatz liberals in the center-right Democratic Party. Presumably real conservatives would be similarly loathe to embrace torturers - assuming any real conservatives were available for comment.

By the way, by definition America is a center-center country. At issue is what that means. The corporate MSM and the entrenched political parties (both of 'em) are invested in preserving myths of American culture that were hackneyed when Wally and the Beeve were being groomed for middle management.