Case Summaries: Parental Discipline
Mother’s Corporal Punishment Constituted DV—Evidence established that the parties’ children were in danger of or were victims of domestic violence, so as to support the issuance of a DV CPO against the mother, where at least one of the child’s bruises was located around the kidney area, mother never alleged that the location of the bruises was accidental because the child was struggling to avoid spanking, the mother held the child down while she administered punishment, bruising was evidence of force used to strike a child with a spoon, considerable force must have been used to inflict injuries with a plastic spoon, mother displayed pattern of force in disciplining children, admitting that she hurt her own hand in delivering punishments and that she "whipped" her children regularly, and such force, applied to areas of body housing vital organs, supported the trial court’s finding that there was substantial risk of serious physical harm to the children. The punishment imposed by the mother was excessive under the circumstances and created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to one of the children. Further, there was sufficient, credible evidence to support the domestic violence finding in relation to the other child because "placing children in an environment where there is a substantial risk to their health and safety constitutes one form of domestic violence." Hicks v. Barker, 2009-Ohio-2445 (12th Dist., Warren, 5/26/09).
Keywords: punishment "minor victim" parent parents
Date: 3/19/10
Mother’s Use of Belt On 35-Month Old Child Not Excessive: The Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent of custody of appellate-mother’s child to Children Services. The child had previously been adjudicated delinquent because of an accidental burning and placed under protective supervision. Children Services moved for permanent custody after an incident in which the mother used corporal punishment with a belt, on the 35-month-old child, leaving bruises on the child’s buttocks and legs. However, parental discipline was not excessive when viewed in the totality of the circumstance, including the fact that the child was almost three years of age, the child was disciplined after running away from his family at Kings Island, and the child did not require medical attention as a result of the incident, and the mother did not spank her child frequently. In addition, the mother’s punishment of the child did not create a substantial risk of serious physical harm because there was no medical evidence to show that the child’s injuries amounted to serious physical harm. Since the corporal punishment inflicted was not excessive and did not create a substantial risk of serious physical harm, the mother did not violate the child endangering statute, R.C. 2919.22 (B)(3), the child was not “abused” as a result of the corporal punishment, and the trial court could not use the corporal punishment incident to support its determination that granting Children Services permanent custody was in the child’s best interests. In re J. L., 2008-Ohio-1488 (Third Dist., Allen, 3/31/08).
Keywords: child abuse child endangerment
Date: 10/24/08
DV Conviction and Two-Year Sentence For Corporal Punishment Affirmed: The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument and affirmed defendant’s felonious assault and child endangering convictions and resulting two-year concurrent prison sentences stemming from defendant’s corporal punishment of his 12-year-old son. The photographs of the child’s injuries indicated a “beating,” defendant had eight previous arrests for domestic violence since 1995, and defendant had failed to take responsibility for his actions. The sentences are supported by the record and not contrary to the law. State v. Page, 2008-Ohio-4244 (Eighth Dist., Cuyahoga, 8/21/08).
Keywords: child abuse child endangerment
Date: 10/24/08
DV Conviction For Corporal Punishment of Four-Year-Old Affirmed: The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and resulting 90-day jail sentence (89 days suspended) for excessive corporal punishment of his four-year-old daughter. Defendant struck his daughter three times on the buttocks with a belt, leaving bruises on her buttocks and legs. It was also undisputed that defendant’s daughter had not been a discipline problem in the past and that her behavior on the night in question was unusual. Therefore, defendant’s action was not “proper and reasonable parental discipline.” State v. Cantwell, 2008-Ohio-3928 (Fifth Dist., Licking, 7//31/08).
Keywords: child abuse child endangerment
Date: 10/24/08
CPO Denied Despite Use of Excessive Corporal Punishment
While sharing the trial courts concern that respondent-father in denying the issuance of a CPO." Respondent had spanked the parties three-and-one-half-year-old daughter up to 30;times, with his hand and a piece of wood trim, causing redness, swelling and bruising, as well as two lacerations near the small of the childs back, after the child had refused to pick up her backpack. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence did not show that respondents punishment created a "substantial risk of physical harm to the girl." Rader v. Rader, 2007-Ohio-4288 (5th App. Dist., Licking, 8/22/07).
Keywords: children
Date: 3/27/2008
Burden of Proof Is On Defendant-parent To Prove Reasonable Parental Discipline
The court of appeals affirmed a mothers conviction of criminal domestic violence arising from an incident where she hit and paddled her 15-year-old daughter. Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction that placed the evidentiary burden on the state to prove that the discipline administered by the Defendant was unreasonable. Rather, the jury was properly instructed as to the affirmative defense of reasonable parental discipline with the burden of proof being upon the accused to establish that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Craun, 158 Ohio App.3d 389, 2004-Ohio-4403 (3rd Dist., Shelby, 8/23/2004).
Keywords: "corporal punishment",punishment
Date: 4/1/2005
Defendant's DV Conviction For Striking Son Upheld:
Defendant went to his children's friends' house to pick up his children. When defendant arrived, his son was not ready to go. When the son attempted to get his shoes and jacket, defendant grabbed him by the ear and pulled him toward the front door. The son pulled away from defendant, and the two fell to the floor with defendant landing on top of his son. Defendant then attempted to hit his son. The trial court did not err in excluding testimony as to the possible bias on the part of the father of two of the child witnesses because .the testimony was irrelevant, as it was not related to whether defendant caused or attempted to cause harm to his son. Defendant also asserted that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from defendant that his son had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and had not taken his medication and testimony from defendant's daughter that his son was unaware that defendant was coming to pick them. Defendant did not attempt to proffer any of the evidence that was allegedly erroneously excluded, and thus waived the issue pursuant to Ohio R. Evid. 103(A). State v. Winans, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 1651 (Licking, 5th App. Dist.).
Keywords: parental discipline, discipline, corporal punishment
Date: 5/16/2003
Lance-sepesi v. Goris
The stepmother twice tipped the daughter's chair forward to make her stop sitting with her feet on the chair. The second time the daughter's head and chest hit a table. A social worker testified that the daughter had also reported being pulled down stairs and slapped, but that the father denied that she been pulled down stairs or dumped from a chair. In challenging the dismissal, the mother argued that she presented a prima facie case of domestic violence. The appellate court held that the trial court's finding that the chair incident involved reasonable discipline was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the stepmother did not present evidence of such a defense. The dismissal was proper, however, because the mother did not prove domestic violence under 3113.31(A) or danger of domestic violence given that (1) the evidence did not show that the stepmother intended harm or acted recklessly; (2) the injury was accidental and the mother did not prove that the daughter was an abused child under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2151.031; and (3) the record did not show that the stepmother, by force or threat of force, placed the daughter in fear of imminent serious physical harm. Lance-Sepesi v. Goris, 2003 Ohio 1622 (Wood, 6th App. Dist., 3/31/03).
Keywords: corporal punishment, parental discipline, discipline
Date: 5/16/2003
Parent's Punishment of Child Was Domestic Violence:
Defendant was arrested and charged with domestic violence after he shook and pushed his daughter for refusing to put on her slippers and leave her mother, who had a headache, alone. On appeal, defendant argued that his conduct could not rise to domestic violence because it was only a parent's reasonable discipline of his daughter. Defendant pointed out that the daughter sustained no visible injury. In affirming the trial court's conviction, the court of appeals noted that visible or actual injury was not required under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2919.25(A). Further, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the daughter would probably be injured when she was shaken and pushed down by defendant and that defendant's statement that he was going to kill somebody indicated that he was angry and intended to harm the daughter. State v. McNichols, 2002 Ohio 6253; 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 6073 (Hocking, 4th App. Dist.).
Keywords: parental discipline, corporal punishment, discipline
Date: 5/16/2003
Court Sets Forth Factors For Distinguishing Reasonable Corporal Punishment From DV
Trial court ruled that slapping of teenage daughter eight times in the face ("clobbered" in defendant's own words) leaving reddened cheek and slightly puffy lip cannot qualify as lawful corporal punishment, and convicted defendant of domestic violence. Appellate court reversed, stating such conduct might qualify as reasonable and proper corporal punishment, an affirmative defense (R.C. 2919.25). Court must consider child's age, behavior, and response to noncorporal punishment, as well as location and severity of punishment, in determining propriety and reasonableness of corporal punishment. State v. Hart (Defiance 1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 250.
Keywords: discipline, factors
Date: 11/13/2002
Corporal Punishment That Is Not Child Abuse May Still Be DV
Court of appeals affirmed issuance of CPO against the father based on his committing an act of DV against his ten-year-old daughter. In the most recent incident, the father had spanked his daughter several times on the buttocks, bad enough to leave red marks on her buttocks visible a day later. The fathers actions did not rise to the level of child abuse as defined in R.C. 2151.031 and 2919.22. Nevertheless, the fathers conduct constituted domestic violence because it exceeded reasonable and proper corporal punishment. Reynolds v. White, Case No. 74506 (Cuyahoga 9/23/99).
Keywords: discipline
Date: 4/23/2002
Father Hitting Eleven-year-old Son With Fist Is DV
Appeals court upheld domestic violence conviction of father for hitting son's arm several times with a closed fist causing a reddening of an area on son's arm and temporarily rendering the son unable to move his arm. State v. Moser, No. L-98-1111 (Lucas 7/30/99).
Keywords: discipline, corporal punishment
Date: 4/23/2002
Corporal Punishment With Belt Deemed Reasonable
Trial court properly denied CPO requested by appellant on behalf of parties minor child where the ex-husband and appellant failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that child abuse had occurred; ex-wife appellee used reasonable corporal punishment in spanking their ten-year-old son with a belt. Thompson v. Koontz, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4043 (Hamilton, 1st Dist., 9/22/00).
Keywords: discipline
Date: 4/23/2002
Mothers Failure To Stop Fathers Abuse of Daughter Is DV
Appeals court upheld issuance of CPO against a childs physically abusive father and the mother, where the mother had yelled at the daughter, called her names, and never told the father to stop abusing the daughter. Domestic violence includes acts of a parent which cause physical or mental injury that harm or threaten to harm the childs health or welfare. Kurincic v. Kurincic, Case No. 75592 (Cuyahoga 2/24/00).
Keywords: discipline, corporal punishment, permitting abuse
Date: 4/23/2002
Corporal Punishment Is Not DV
Father's conviction of disorderly conduct overturned, where he three times twisted his 17-year-old daughter's arm behind her back to pry car keys from her hand, sat on her, pushed her head into her chest, and attempted to spank her. Such conduct "fell within established parameters of proper and reasonable parental discipline." "Proper" punishment is that which is suitable or appropriate, and "reasonable" punishment is that which is not extreme or excessive, per R.C. 2901.01 (C). State v. Hauenstein (Putnam 1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 511.
Keywords: discipline
Date: 4/23/2002
Child's Broken Lip Is Not DV
Appeals court overturned conviction of father for backhanding teenage daughter, causing broken lip, ruling it "proper and reasonable" discipline. Court said it feared mother was "maneuvering to gain a favorable position in a domestic relations action" by filing complaint. One judge dissented. State v. Wagster, No. C-950584 (Hamilton 3/27/96).
Keywords: discipline, corporal punishment
Date: 4/23/2002
Ohio Supreme Court Says Discipline Is Not DV
Nothing in R.C. 2919.25(A) [the criminal domestic violence statute] prevents a parent from properly disciplining his or her child. The only prohibition is that a parent may not cause "Physical harm" as that term is defined in R.C. 2901.01 (C). "Physical harm" is defined as "any injury[.]" "Injury" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 785, as "... [t]he invasion of any legally protected interest of another." A child does not have any legally protected interest which is invaded by proper and reasonable parental discipline. State v. Suchomski (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 74.
Keywords: corporal punishment
Date: 4/23/2002
DV Convictions Affirmed Because Corporal Punishment Was Not Proper and Reasonable
Convictions of two counts of domestic violence against appellate mother who abused nine- and eleven-year-old children affirmed because trial court did not abuse discretion. Ohio legislation does not prohibit parental discipline but it must be proper and reasonable; the fact that the mother had told child to tell teacher that bruises received occurred because she had fallen indicated an awareness by mother that her beatings were excessive and unreasonable. State of Ohio v. Jones, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5719, No. 77841 (8th Dist., Cuyahoga, (9/07/00) .
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Kicking Child In Leg Is Not DV
Court of appeals affirmed trial courts dismissal of CPO petition alleging that the father committed DV against his son by kicking his son in the leg. The petitioner-mother failed to submit evidence sufficient enough to sustain her allegations of domestic violence, especially since the minor sons testimony contradicted what he told his mother and the doctors report showed no bruising or abnormalities. Dyke v. Dyke, Case No. 98-G-2155 (Geauga 11/5/99).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
Excessive Corporal Punishment Factors Defined
An Illinois appeals Court found that the mere use of a wooden spoon in spanking a child with some regularity did not by itself constitute abuse, even though a one-inch bruise occurred on one occasion, where the frequency of the spankings and the number of blows administered were never established, the parent demonstrated a calm demeanor and conscientiousness at the time of the spankings, and the child was described by a babysitter as happy and unaffected after being disciplined. Court said it could draw no firm line between excessive and non-excessive corporal punishment. Factors to consider in defining abusive behavior are: (1) degree of physical injury; (2) the likelihood of future, more serious injury; (3) the psychological effects on the child; and (4) the circumstances surrounding the discipline, including the parent's demeanor, i.e., whether calm or "lashing out" in anger. In re: J.P. (Illinois v. Karen P.), Nos. 1-96-3323 (111 App.Ct. 1st Dist., 2/26/98) (24 FLR 1212). Also see Raboin v. North Dakota Dept of Human Services, No. 950391 (ND Sup.Ct. 6/27/96).
Keywords:
Date: 4/17/2002
