Everyday Mom

I’m really on the fence about this one, and I’m sure it will be the start of another heated debate on the subject.  I wonder what you think.  This week, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a mother’s conviction of battery on her son.   Their decision states that she was exercising reasonable parental discipline when she whipped her 11-year old son with a belt or extension cord.   There 4-1 decision claimed that the mother did not cross over the boundary into criminal conduct.  The Court felt that the State did not do its part in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother misused her parental discipline privilege. 

The case came to light when the boy showed bruises he received as a result of the beating to his school nurse.  The nurse then called the authorities, and the mother was arrested.  She indicated that the boy was being disciplined when he was asked to pull down his pants and have his bare bottom whipped.  He was also hit on the legs and arms as he squirmed trying to avoid being hit.   She was later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail with 357 days of the sentence suspended.  The conviction was upheld in the state Court of Appeals and recently overturned in the Indiana Supreme Court. 

The decisions to overturn the previous court ruling set a really big precedent stating that parents have a legal privilege to dicipline their children as long as punishment is reasonable and not likely to cause serious or permanent harm.    The one dissent was concerned that abusive parents often claim that they had the right to discipline their child and that such a decision would make it much more difficult to protect children in abusive situations.

I tend to agree with the dissent in this case.  However, I am very much in favor of strong discipline up to and including spanking.  I think a firm hand is sometimes required when it comes to steering your children in the right direction.  I’ve spanked both of my children and will likely have to again.  My children are fully aware of the rules and standards we have set for them and are equally aware of the consequences.  That said, I agree with the dissenting opinion in this case because I’m not confident that all parents are interested in what is right for their kids.  I’m afraid that the motive for spanking, whipping , beating , etc. is too varied to just say it’s okay as long as it isn’t serious or permanent.  I’m confident that in this case the evidence may have required the Justices to overturn the conviction, but I’m afraid the decision may truly cause more harm than good as more and more abusive parents use the decision to claim their “‘parental discipline privilege”. 

I’m just one everday mom trying to do her best to love her children and raise them to be good people.  This ruling scares me that some parents (who don’t always have what’s right for their children as a top priority) now have the okay to do whatever they want and use a court ruling to defend some special privilege that they don’t then balance with the responsibility to care for and nurture their children.  What do you think?