Nguyen: Spanking Your Kids: The Parental Privilege Defense
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
People older than my generation tend to favor corporal punishment. It is my generation, those millennials, who have begun to question whether hitting your kids is effective. I find that people who were not hit or who were traumatized from being hit do not believe in it, whereas people who were hit and it “worked” are in favor of it. Additionally, there are cultural influences that affect people’s opinion.
Up until now, the law has recognized that people have the right to discipline their children using force, but there has not been clear guidance about the degree of acceptable force. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently clarified the standard in the case of Commonwealth v. Dorvil, where a father was charged with assault and battery after officers saw him kick his two-year-old child in the back and smack her on the bum. The facts about the kick are disputed, but the father admitted to smacking his child on the rear because she sassed him and was misbehaving. The lower courts had found the father guilty, but the SJC reversed.
The court held that the parental privilege defense applied. The parental privilege defense recognizes the Constitutional right of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. However, the parental privilege defense must strike a balance between allowing parents to raise their kids how they choose while protecting children from excessive punishment.
The court established a standard which holds that parents will not be criminally sanctioned for using physical force to discipline a minor child under their care and supervision so long as (1) the force used is reasonable; (2) the force is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child (including preventing or punishing the child’s misbehavior); and (3) the use of force does not cause, or create a substantial risk of causing, physical harm (more than just “fleeting minor pain or minor, transient marks”), “gross degradation,” or “severe mental distress.”
To determine the first two prongs of the test – whether the force was reasonable – the court will look at the circumstances, including the child’s age, physical and mental condition, and the nature of the child’s misconduct. To evaluate the third prong of the test, the court must decide whether the force used or risk of harm caused was so “extreme” that it is inherently impermissible. It’s almost like a “you know it when you see it” standard.
Furthermore, the court ruled that whether the parent was angry or not at the time of the discipline is
irrelevant. This makes sense because of course sometimes parents will be angry when punishing their children and just because they are angry does not mean they are overstepping their bounds. Conversely, a parent excessively beating a child without one sign of anger should not be able to rely on the parental privilege defense.
The court also declined to establish a bright-line cutoff age below which it is absolutely prohibited to use corporal punishment on a child. The child in Dorvil was two, almost three, years-old and the court determined that she had the capacity to understand and appreciate the reason for punishment. While there is not bright-line test, it follows that using force to discipline an infant who does not understand misbehavior or punishment would likely be found impermissible by the court.
Regardless of what side of the debate on which you fall, the bottom line is parents have a choice as to whether they want to use corporal punishment on their children. This choice falls in line with parents’ rights to raise their kids how they see fit and with limited interference from the government.
AiVi Nguyen is a trial lawyer with the Law Firm of Bowditch & Dewey, LLP in Worcester.
Related Articles
- Nguyen:The Email Scandal: Did Hillary Clinton Break The Law?
- Nguyen: Boston Marathon Bomber’s Jury: How Did We Get Here?
- Nguyen: Understanding the Logic of the Same-Sex Marriage Decision by SCOTUS
- Nguyen: Getting Robert Durst “Confession” Recordings Into Evidence at Trial
- Nguyen: Does Your March Madness Work Pool Break The Law?
- Nguyen: Hernandez Trial: Think About the Appeal
- Nguyen: Same Sex Marriage Before the Supreme Court: What is at Stake?
- Nguyen: Tsarnaev: The Cost Of A Death Sentence Versus Life Imprisonment
- Nguyen: Pay to Play Investigation of Craft Beer Industry Comes to a Head
- Nguyen: Asian Americans Seek To Abolish Affirmative Action At Harvard
- Nguyen: Sentencing Tsarnaev To Death: The Burden Of Proof
- Nguyen: The Civil Suits Against Aaron Hernandez
- Nguyen: Blurred Lines Indeed: Did The Jury Get It Wrong?
- Nguyen: MLB Hacking Scandal: The Cardinals’ Potential Legal Exposure
- Nguyen: Does Prohibiting A Scandalous Trademark Infringe On The Right To Free Speech?
- Nguyen: Uber As We Know It May Be Gone Forever
- Nguyen: The Hope Solo Saga: U.S. Soccer and Domestic Violence Allegations
- Nguyen: How Will The Law Protect Caitlyn Jenner Against Discrimination?
- Nguyen: Compensating the Victims of the Germanwings Tragedy
- Nguyen: Petty Gets Credit for Sam Smith’s ‘Stay With Me’
- Nguyen: Appealing the Suspension: Brady’s Play Options
- Nguyen: O’Toole Has Hands Full in Tsarnaev Case
- Nguyen: Hernandez Did Not Need To Pull The Trigger To Be Found Guilty Of Murder
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It