So your kid is having a bad day.
That the neglect ruling came as a result of a single instance of violence, in light of the situation, is certainly troubling. But it raises some broader questions about what parents are supposed to do when a child is out of control. Nothing in the decision suggests that the child was otherwise bad or uncontrollable, no claims of a string of arrests or other violence by the boy, nor any claim of a string of gratuitously violent or harmful acts by the mother.
The failure of a parent to discipline a child is almost invariably deemed blameworthy, and people are hardly reluctant to ask why a bad kid’s parent didn’t fulfill her responsibilities in raising the child properly. It’s unlikely that anyone thinks that the shoe to the nose was an appropriate method of dealing with the situation, but given the circumstances, particularly that the mother tried to withdraw from the confrontation but the son wouldn’t allow it, what response would have been better?
The rules were once fairly clear. Spare the rod and spoil the child. The risks today are impossible to calculate. Corporal punishment is largely off-limits, if not the quickest way to the local hoosegow. Granted, earlier generations were never denied a swift and certain spanking when they defied their parents, but then real abuse, ranging from broken bones to cigarette burns, exists. The battle lines are far too fuzzy to see during those calm, deliberative periods when parents ponder how best to discipline children. They are non-existent when the fur is flying, the situation heated and tempers flaring.
Visions of parental propriety appear to be largely drive by dogmatic positions: No parent should ever physically discipline a child. No child should ever be allowed to get away with showing such disrespect to a parent. These irreconcilable positions leave parents at best confused and at worst liable for criminal charges and perhaps loosing their children.
For those who believe that they are entitled to dictate how a parent raises their child, I wonder whether they will similar take charge when the child gets out of control and Super Nanny isn’t in town. There may be a fine line between stern parental discipline and actual abuse, but this does little to help a parent come to grips with how to deal with a child out of control. Nor is the hope of reversal by an appellate court a really good child-rearing method.
Clear lines are needed before the fight happens, and at present there are none to be found.
H/T Eugene Volokh
The finding of neglect in this case is based on a single physical confrontation between the mother and her adolescent son, Corey Mc. (hereinafter the son), who at that time was 15 years old and 5 feet 10 inches tall. The evidence in the record established that the mother and the son had a troubled relationship. In this particular incident, the mother confronted the son over what she believed to be a specific instance of inconsiderate behavior, after which she left his room and closed the door. The son came out of his room and directed a stream of profanity-laced invective at the mother, who attempted several times to withdraw from the confrontation. When the son continued his verbal abuse, the mother either punched or slapped him in the face. The incident escalated further, and the son knocked his mother down and continued to curse at her; she got up and hit him on the face with the heel of her shoe, bloodying his nose. The mother then immediately called the police to seek medical attention for the son.Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson at Queens County Family Court found that the mother neglected her child. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed Matter of Corey Mc. v. Tanya Mc. Many will fault the mother for having struck her son in the face with the heel of her shoe. It probably wasn’t the best decision, but then it wasn’t made under the best of circumstances.
That the neglect ruling came as a result of a single instance of violence, in light of the situation, is certainly troubling. But it raises some broader questions about what parents are supposed to do when a child is out of control. Nothing in the decision suggests that the child was otherwise bad or uncontrollable, no claims of a string of arrests or other violence by the boy, nor any claim of a string of gratuitously violent or harmful acts by the mother.
The failure of a parent to discipline a child is almost invariably deemed blameworthy, and people are hardly reluctant to ask why a bad kid’s parent didn’t fulfill her responsibilities in raising the child properly. It’s unlikely that anyone thinks that the shoe to the nose was an appropriate method of dealing with the situation, but given the circumstances, particularly that the mother tried to withdraw from the confrontation but the son wouldn’t allow it, what response would have been better?
The rules were once fairly clear. Spare the rod and spoil the child. The risks today are impossible to calculate. Corporal punishment is largely off-limits, if not the quickest way to the local hoosegow. Granted, earlier generations were never denied a swift and certain spanking when they defied their parents, but then real abuse, ranging from broken bones to cigarette burns, exists. The battle lines are far too fuzzy to see during those calm, deliberative periods when parents ponder how best to discipline children. They are non-existent when the fur is flying, the situation heated and tempers flaring.
Visions of parental propriety appear to be largely drive by dogmatic positions: No parent should ever physically discipline a child. No child should ever be allowed to get away with showing such disrespect to a parent. These irreconcilable positions leave parents at best confused and at worst liable for criminal charges and perhaps loosing their children.
For those who believe that they are entitled to dictate how a parent raises their child, I wonder whether they will similar take charge when the child gets out of control and Super Nanny isn’t in town. There may be a fine line between stern parental discipline and actual abuse, but this does little to help a parent come to grips with how to deal with a child out of control. Nor is the hope of reversal by an appellate court a really good child-rearing method.
Clear lines are needed before the fight happens, and at present there are none to be found.
H/T Eugene Volokh
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One problem with Family Court is the absence of any clear standards for this kind of thing. If any sort of corporal punishment constitutes abuse I don’t see how parents can effectively parent. But no one has ruled so far that corporal punishment is abuse per se, so far as I know. It depends upon the personal opinion of the judge at this point.
In the old days the question was whether a parent was fit or unfit. If the parent was fit, courts didn’t second guess everything they did. If the parent was unfit, the children would be taken.
I’m sure it has its drawbacks, but “best interest of the child” doesn’t tell you anything worthwhile. It’s in the best interest of every child to grow up in the wealthiest household in town, but obviously we’re not going to load that household up with other people’s kids.
I’ll agree that hitting a 5 foot 10 15 year old is probably pointless. Maybe it’s domestic violence, not child abuse.
“Oh, no! My son has a bloody nose! What on Earth shall I do? I know, I’ll call the local constabulary!”
That sounds like neglect to me.
This issue resonates with me. I have a friend whose son is 6’2″, very strong, and on the diagnostic edge of paranoid schizophrenia. She has avoid confrontation for life, which is probably part of the problem.
What bothers me is the automatic conclusion of the local gendarmes and the “system” that the mother is the abuser. Where adolescents reach the size that they are able to knock down their mothers, it seems to me that striking back with an implement is a reasonable response to potentially deadly force.
I know what would have happened in my day. When Dad got home, I would have had a visit with the belt. I chose not to use that device with my kids; but I would not tolerate the conduct you described. The next case would be my action to have the boy involuntary committed for psychiatric evaluation.
Most of all, this was not an area for the cops or the courts.
Very refreshing for a couple more reasons:
Family Court made a finding that a 12 y/o daughter and sister was derivatively neglected and shuttled her into foster care along with her big brother. This the 1st Dept. also reversed, deciding that the derivative neglect is not supported by a preponderance even though the girl witnessed the fight.
Also, “[t]he attorney for the children, who opposed the finding of neglect in the Family Court, agrees with the mother’s position, and so do we.” The law guardian probably read the law, listened to his clients, and spoke like an advocate rather than taking the PC stance, “I join with the county.”