This past week SCOTUS scored a blow for all Americans when it "legalized" same sex marriage, and it's pro-ACA ruling was a score for the Obama Administration. In a lesser publicized, although one of no lesser importance, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ("MSC")...
struck a blow for parents who feel it to be both appropriate and necessary to strike their children, and in doing do the MSC helped to expand the definition of...
The Massachusetts' high court struck it's own blow o/b/o all MA parents who want to strike their children. NOT to be confused with authorizing parental abuse, MA parents no longer need to worry about being subject to arrest for reasonably disciplining their own children by way of an old fashioned...
The legal guidelines for spanking were established on Thursday, June 25th, 2015 and permit the use of physical punishment by parents on their children "by spanking so long as reasonable force is used and the child is not harmed." The MSC issued the framework while reversing an assault and battery conviction of a Brockton, MA man who had been arrested after police observed him spanking his almost 3 y/o daughter near a bus station. In 2011 two (2) cops allegedly witnessed Jean Dorvil kick and then strike his young daughter in the buttocks. Dorvil said he was playing around with the girl, and that he had spanked her lightly when she became disobedient. The judge who tried the case cited conflicting testimony on whether the child was kicked or not but found Dorvil was found guilty of assault and battery for the spanking. He appealed on the grounds of parental privilege and that case resulted in this opinion.
Corporal punishment cases had come before the court in the past, but the justices noted that specific guidelines had never been issued for the parental privilege defense, leaving open the question of whether spanking was allowed under any circumstances in Massachusetts. Writing for the seven (7) member Court, Justice Barbara Lenk said that two (2) important interests needed to be balanced: A) protecting children against abuse and B) avoiding the unnecessary interference with the rights of parents to raise children as they see fit. Justice Lenk wrote that "spanking or other mild physical punishment is permissible if the force used against the minor child is reasonable and where it is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct.”
The MSC was certain to make it abundantly clear that force can never be used if it causes or risks causing any "lasting physical or emotional harm", and concluded that the overall balance must always tip in favor of protecting children from abuse masking as discipline. Justice Lenk cautioned that: "By requiring that the force be reasonable and reasonably related to a legitimate purpose, this approach effectively balances respect for parental decisions regarding the care and upbringing of minor children with the Commonwealth’s compelling interest in protecting children against abuse.” In short, the MSC recognized that there is a world of difference between a parent who reasonably disciplines their child verses one who physically abuses any child; permitting the former and reinforcing the unlawfulness of the latter. And this is not rocket science, it's just plain old common sense.
Naturally there were those who opposed the ruling, taking the absurd position that any striking / touching of a child by a a parent is by definition abusive, but they are fanatical douchebags who either cannot discriminate, or who believe that no parent can discriminate, between the reasonable and unreasonable use of force, as well to distinguish between appropriate circumstances where parental corporal punishment passes the "smell test". Take for instance Mary McGeown, who is the CEO of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Per Mary: "We are the grown-ups. We are supposed to protect kids and hitting them is not a way to discipline them or empower them to make good decisions." Still, even Mary Mary Quite Contrary had to credit the Justices "for balancing strong views on both sides of the matter", stating that she was "pleased with the court’s strong position on child protection". Memo to the Folks of Patriot Nation, er the Bay State: This ruling does not permit child abuse, or disproportionate discipline, so please use good judgment and common sense. I was subjected to corporal discipline and I am yet to have a Columbine moment. I am also yet to beat my own child. In fact let me take a moment to add a Memo to Mary McGeown and the rest of her ilk (i.e. those folks who are completely intolerant of any form of physical parental discipline under any circumstances): The fact that I was subject to corporal punishment ALWAYS (each and every time) enters my mind when I wanna smack my 10 y/o.... and those memories almost always stay my hand. I am always reminded that if there is to be a smack then the "offense" damn well better be justified by the precipitating event. And do you know what? It usually, most always, does NOT meet the "smell test", so I do not strike my kid. But this does not mean that there are not times where it was necessary for me (as a kid to be stricken) or where it is necessary for me to do so to / for my kid, so... back down and stay out of my personal business. I would not punch, torture, beat (etc) my kid and anyone who does should be prosecuted. In the interim is is a simple fact - IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE FACT - that on occasion...
Memo to the Folks: This ruling has no bearing on the issue of....
As an aside I will share two (2) tangential thoughts on this matter, both of which, in my opinion, directly speak to what I affectionately call the "pussification" of American society today....
1) A few years ago while waiting in a typically brutal TSA line which was crawling like molasses and watching time tick as A) my son's "unaccompanied minor" flight departure time rapidly approached, B) TSA refused to expedite our processing through their line and C) my ten 6 y/o kid was absolutely and utterly uncontrollable, I grabbed him by the shirt collar and yelled at him to stand still and shut up. Clearly this was not my finest moment but, and not withstanding my admittedly harsh tone, I also did not strike my child. Regardless I was whole-heartily offended, and had to seriously bite my tongue, when some TSA douchebag grabbed my shoulder spinning me around and ordering me to "stop talking to my kid like that". My protest was cut short when he made it clear that I would be detained if I even said another word. Fortunately I am not an idiot so I did STFU, but to this day I am livid at that TSA douchebag who should have been 1) paying more attention to moving the line along, 2) more sensitive to an unaccompanied minor who had an imminent departure and 3) staying out of my non-violent, albeit loud, parenting business.
2) As a kid I attended North Beach Elementary School on Arthur Godfrey Road in Miami Beach. Our Principal was a no-nonsense man named Mr. Simmons. Gene ran a tight ship and, in lieu of a rudder, he steered his ship with a paddle which looked exactly, precisely, like this (a few of my NBE friends, I will not name names, will remember just as I do, which is kinda the point)...
Suffice it to say that I met that paddle twice in my six (6) years of late 1960's through early-mid 1970's elementary education. The first time Mr. Simmons had me drop my drawers and bend over his desk. As I did he swooshed the paddle past me so fast that I both heard the motion and felt the wind force. It scared me pretty good, but not well enough as I found myself bent over that desk with my pants around my ankles a second time. On that latter occasion the paddle connected with my derriere. There was no third time. Thus...
And...
Since 1991 Michael A. Haber, P.A. has been creatively, effectively and zealously representing clients, both juvenile and adult, in both State and Federal Courts, in criminal cases ranging from DUI to drug trafficking and from misdemeanors to first degree murder.
At Michael A. Haber, P.A. "Its all about reasonable doubt"!
Michael A. Haber, Esq. is prepared to speak with you about your case!
Cell: 305-798-2220; Office: 305-381-8686; Toll Free: 1-888-SHARK-8-1
LIKE www.facebook.com/haberpa ~ FOLLOW http://habercriminallaw.blogspot.com ~ SUBSCRIBE https://www.youtube.com/c/michaelhaberlaw ~ SEE www.criminallaw.miami ~ CALL 1-888-SHARK-8-1
THIS BLOG POST (AS ARE ALL OF HABERPA BLOG POSTS) IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT WHICH IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED, BY WAY OF REAL WORLD EXAMPLE, TO ASSIST THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN AVOIDING CONDUCT WHICH COULD FORESEEABLY RESULT IN ARREST AND PROSECUTION!
#Webisode #YouTube #VideoFAQ #AVVO #HaberPA #Arrest #Arrested #CriminalLawyer #CriminalLaw #CriminalDefense #CriminalDefenseLawyer #MiamiCriminalDefenseLawyer #CriminalDefenseAttorney #MiamiCriminalDefenseAttorney #CriminalAttorney #DUI #DWI #DrivingUnderTheInfluence #BUI #BoatingUnderTheInfluence #DomesticViolence #DV #DVRO #DomesticViolenceRestrainingOrder #Seal #Expunge #Sealing #Expungement #CriminalRecord #CriminalHistory #PSA #PublicServiceAnnouncement #Spanking #Parenting #CorporalPunishment #SupremeCourt #ParentalPrivilege #BostonStrong
No comments:
Post a Comment