made are inadmissible); Barrow v. State, 749 A.2d 1230 (Del.2000) (suppressing statements by juvenile -because parental notification statute violated); Palmer v. State, 626 A.2d 1358 (Del.1993) (reversing seventeen-year-old juvenile’s conviction because of police’s failure to timely notify custodian violated mandate of statute and constituted deprivation of defendant’s right to due process and self-incrimination rights); In re D.B., 303 Ill.App.3d 412, 237 Ill.Dec. 3, 708 N.E.2d 806, 811 (1999) (noting that purpose of law requiring immediate notification of parents when juvenile taken into custody “is to permit, where possible, a parent to confer with and counsel the juvenile before interrogation and confession”); Brown, supra, 182 Ill.App.3d 1046, 131 Ill.Dec. 534, 538 N.E.2d 909 (<HOLDING>); A Minor Boy v. State, 89 Nev. 564, 517 P.2d
recognizing that police officers may use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest holding court could not require parents to divulge incriminating information but court could consider parents failure to undergo meaningful therapy in deciding whether parents could regain their children holding ordinance requiring clinics to notify parents of their teenage daughters receipt of contraceptives unconstitutional holding that polices flagrant  violation of statute requiring officers to make reasonable attempts to notify parents among factors causing court to determine that defendants statement was involuntary and therefore should be suppressed holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant