the parents’ presence and request to see [his or] her child. And, in order to ensure the true voluntariness of a statement, those actually questioning the juvenile have an affirmative duty to stop the questioning and allow the parent to confer with [his or] her child.” People v. Brown, 182 Ill.App.3d 1046, 131 Ill.Dec. 534, 538 N.E.2d 909 (1989). See also In re Lashun H., 284 Ill.A 93) (finding that seventeen-year-old had opportunity to consult with custodian so statements were admissible); People v. Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 612, 636 N.Y.S.2d 830 (1996) (finding no evidence that police used deception or trickery to isolate seventeen-year-old defendant from his parents so statement admissible); Hickman v. State, 654 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind. App.1995) (declining to exclude statements of (1986) (<HOLDING>); Sublette, supra, 365 No.2d 775 (observing
holding that we have never found that it is permissible for a jury to make an inference from the invocation of a witnesss assertion of the fifth amendment holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights