Times sure have changed

[Puppycow]

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A Texas mom has been sentenced to probation and has lost custody of her children for spanking her daughter.

Rosalina Gonzáles of Corpus Christi pleaded guilty on Wednesday to Injury to a Child for swatting the 2-year-old on her buttocks.

According to prosecutors, Gonzáles in December hit the girl with an open hand, leaving some red marks.

Police arrested Gonzáles after the child's grandmother reported the injuries and took the child to a hospital.

Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

 

[FattyCatty]

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter



Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

I can't believe that spanking a child is a crime. Especially in Texas (maybe shooting the kid would have been ok?)

And you're right about the costs. Not to mention the cost of having adults who were never disciplined as children. It will be the Brat Generation. (And I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Frankly, I doubt this story is even accurate because everything I've read says that such discipline is acceptable in Texas. Here is a recent example:

We put that question to Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg. "The law allows you to spank your child. You are allowed to impose reasonable, physical discipline on your child."

So how does a parent know what is "reasonable?" The law doesn't say specifically, but we did find these guidelines from the Attorney General's office.

Don't hit a child in anger. Abuse is most likely to occur when the parent is out of control. The A.G.'s office also says striking a child above the waist is more likely to be considered abusive, since disciplinary spanking is usually confined to the buttocks area. And the most obvious guideline: Punishment is abusive if it causes injury.

"Spanking a child on the butt is not generally going to be seen as child abuse," adds Herberg. "When you beat a child with a belt where it leaves welts across that child's back, or other parts of their body for days or weeks, you've crossed the line. And you are going to get into trouble for that."

The red marks above her son's waist are probably what led to Shanna Hartman's arrest, although she denies causing them.

Finally, the A.G.'s office says an open hand, belts and hair brushes are not likely to be considered abusive when used for spanking. But things like electrical cords, boards, sticks, ropes or shoes are likely to be.

If you are a parent who uses time-out instead of spanking, that could also be considered abuse if it involves locking a child in or out, depriving them of food, or restraining them in some way.

Linky.

But to put the issue in terms of emotional outrage or financial costs seems a poor way of examining the issue.

I guess it depends on if you interpret the "marks" in the story to be from the same day, or if they were welts, etc. We don't know, and the articles I've read were all equally vague about the key part of the story.

I'd agree that the judge's comments seem odd given the precedent, but again we just have this odd, isolated quote in a media story.

 

[JudeBrando]

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter

Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

 

[FattyCatty]

Frankly, I doubt this story is even accurate because everything I've read says that such discipline is acceptable in Texas. Here is a recent example:



Linky.

But to put the issue in terms of emotional outrage or financial costs seems a poor way of examining the issue.
I guess it depends on if you interpret the "marks" in the story to be from the same day, or if they were welts, etc. We don't know, and the articles I've read were all equally vague about the key part of the story.

I'd agree that the judge's comments seem odd given the precedent, but again we just have this odd, isolated quote in a media story.

I don't see anything strange about reacting to what seems to be a very bad judicial decision. The story did not indicate any harm to the child (a temporary red mark from a spanking is not harm). Even a bleeding-heart liberal like me can be outraged over the attack on parental rights this represents. And I think it is valid to consider both immediate and long-term costs of such inappropriate actions by the court, especially when they go against the actual law (as seems to be the case based on what we know so far).

Here's more on the subject. They say that the child was spanked on the bottom. I haven't seen whether the mother used her hand only or used a paddle or brush or something. That would make a difference, as would the length of time the red marks lasted.

I don't know why the State Attorney General's Office refuses to comment on the legality of the ruling. I don't understand why the judge is allowed to say something contrary to state law. Is this a local judge and a local prosecution?

And here's the quote from the AG's website:

Is spanking okay?

Texas law allows the use of force, but not deadly force, against a child by the child's parent, guardian, or other person who is acting in loco parentis. Most parents do, in fact, use corporal punishment (in the form of spanking) at least occasionally, and most do not, in fact, consider it abusive. Experts disagree about the advisability of ever spanking a child. Some say that, combined with other methods of discipline, mild spanking of a small child is harmless and effective. Others claim that other methods of discipline work as well as spanking or better, and that spanking is not necessary. Many child advocates and experts in child development contend that all forms of corporal punishment, including spanking, are harmful. Most believe that spanking an infant is always inappropriate. The law does not attempt to arbitrate between the different views on the best method of disciplining a child. What we do know is that severe corporal punishment can be extremely damaging and dangerous, and this is what the law prohibits as abuse.

When is discipline abusive?

Some parents who become abusive believe that what they are doing is in the best interest of the child and are confused about when an attempt at discipline crosses the line and becomes abuse. Whether an action is abusive really depends on the circumstances of the individual case. However, the following guidelines may help:

• Striking a child above the waist is more likely to be considered abusive; disciplinary spanking is usually confined to the buttocks.
• Spanking with the bare, open hand is least likely to be abusive; the use of an instrument is cause for concern. Belts and hair brushes are accepted by many as legitimate disciplinary "tools," and their use is not likely to be considered abusive, as long as injury does not occur. Electrical or phone cords, boards, yardsticks, ropes, shoes, and wires are likely to be considered instruments of abuse.
• It is best not to hit a child in anger. Abusive punishment is most likely to occur when the parent is out of control.
• Finally, and most important, punishment is abusive if it causes injury. A blow that causes a red mark that fades in an hour is not likely to be judged abusive. On the other hand, a blow that leaves a bruise, welt, or swelling, or requires medical attention, probably would be judged abusive.

 

[JJM 777]

This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

I wonder if race, poverty, drug use, or other secondary reasons play a role here.

In any case, times have apparently changed the grandmother, not the current generation mother.

If this story is true, all I have to say is: this court commits huge violations of human rights. The judge should be tried internationally and thrown to prison. You just don´t take kids from a mother, for any reason much lesser than murder or something. If you don´t understand what that really means, we can take your kids from you, so you´ll see.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Pfft. Turn down the hyperbole a bit, OK?

 

[WildCat]

If this story is true, all I have to say is: this court commits huge violations of human rights. The judge should be tried internationally and thrown to prison.

 

[Puppycow]

I haven't seen whether the mother used her hand only or used a paddle or brush or something. That would make a difference, as would the length of time the red marks lasted.

It was in what I quoted in the OP:

According to prosecutors, Gonzáles in December hit the girl with an open hand, leaving some red marks.

I rather doubt those would cause any permanent injury unless she really wailed on the girl. Perhaps it was more severe than the description implies, but usually mere "red marks" on the bottom are not a serious injury.

 

[FattyCatty]

It was in what I quoted in the OP:


I rather doubt those would cause any permanent injury unless she really wailed on the girl. Perhaps it was more severe than the description implies, but usually mere "red marks" on the bottom are not a serious injury.

Sorry, I focused on the bolded text and missed that.

While searching to find court records (using a different search string that than before), I found an article that indicates there's more to the story than originally was reported.

A local case sparked a nationwide debate about the legality of spanking, but prosecutors and court records showed that it was about much more than spanking.

The controversy began after 214th District Judge Jose Longoria's told a mother the days of spanking being an acceptable practice were gone.

"You don't spank children. You understand?" he said.

But his brief characterization left out many of the circumstances. Court records, police reports, photos and witness statements show the girl had widespread bruises and other injuries when she was taken to a hospital on Dec. 29.
"This is not just a spanking case," said First Assistant District Attorney Gail Loeb. "Ultimately, she admitted to the assault."
<snip>
Gonzales has a history with Child Protective Services dating to 2009 when investigators suspected her of physically abusing and neglecting the girl. Back then, the girl was twice hospitalized for bruises on her thighs and buttocks that could have been caused by fingers. Investigators found Gonzales had been the primary caregiver and that she couldn't offer a possible explanation for the bruises, but they weren't able to prove who injured the girl, according to a CPS affidavit.

Gonzales' mother called police Dec. 29 after the girl returned from an overnight stay with Gonzales with bruises on her buttocks and bruises on her back and around her neck.

The girl was taken to Driscoll Children's Hospital and officials there then met with investigators after determining the girl's injuries appeared to have been intentional.

A doctor who examined the girl reported that besides the bruises to her buttocks, there was an abrasion on her ear consistent with when a child is pulled by the ear, pinpoint bruises on the chest and red dots that were signs of broken blood vessels under the skin. The girl also had two healing arm fractures that also seemed consistent with child abuse, according to a CPS affidavit and police reports.

So, I jumped to a false conclusion. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

 

[Alan]

It's not at all surprising that there was more than was first reported.

 

[Lamuella]

so, what's the betting that despite this being a story about an abusive parent assaulting her child it will be used as evidence of the nanny state in email forwards for years to come?

 

[Puppycow]

I jumped to a false conclusion. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

So the reporter really did "lie by omission."

Sorry folks!

I'll try to vet things better next time. Especially if it comes from Fox "News".

But it was an educational thread, for me anyway.

 

[Lamuella]

puppycow, I'd just like to say that you exemplified one of my favourite things about this forum: You expressed an opinion based on what you knoew, new information came along, and you revised your opinion based on it. May we all have this much humility and intellectual honesty.

 

[Puppycow]

Aw shucks.

 

[catsmate]

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

Careful, all those strawmen area fire hazard.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

Aw, it's starting to learn from it's environment. Fallacies and sarcasm, now try snark.

 

[Cayvmann]

I was doubtful when the article said the grandmother took her to the hospital. I almost always assume grandmas know what's going on. ( I may be wrong in some cases )

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I can't believe that spanking a child is a crime. Especially in Texas (maybe shooting the kid would have been ok?)

And you're right about the costs. Not to mention the cost of having adults who were never disciplined as children. It will be the Brat Generation. (And I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.)

While I don't think that a simple spanking is child abuse, I find it very telling when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline.

Lazy parents have to resort to hitting because they aren't smart enough to be able to discipline their kids any other way. My parents never lay a hand on me and I was still disciplined. I was an extremely well behaved child who almost never got in trouble. In fact, almost none of my friends when I was younger had parents who hit them, and we were all honors students who stayed out of trouble, were respectful and polite, and are now successful, hard working, well behaved adults. The kids I knew who were hit were typically kids with parents who were, frankly, really trashy unsuccessful people, and the kids were in turn aggressive and got in trouble a lot. The kids whose parents were intelligent and successful seemed to have no trouble disciplining their kids by other means.

Our parents just had the ability to actually teach their children things rather than just resorting to intimidation to make them behave.

It's still true today. My friends and relatives who are smart and successful don't hit their kids, and their kids are well behaved and respectful. There are a few people I work with though who are just very trashy, rude, unprofessional people who talk about how they spank or hit their kids. And then they wonder why their kids get in trouble for bullying at school. I'm not saying this is universally true, but in my experience, people who hit/spank their kids are typically unintelligent and unsuccessful. And their kids are more likely to be problem children. Studies I've read seem to reflect this as well, i.e. a high correlation between kids who were spanked/hit who become bullies and aggressive. Also, I've lived and traveled all over the world, and hitting/spanking is most common in places where people lack education and live in a society with high rates of violence and social instability.

I don't think it should be illegal, but spanking is unnecessary, and is a good way to teach kids that you can use physical force to control someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to do what you want.

 

[Spindrift]

While I don't think that a simple spanking is child abuse, I find it very telling when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline.

Lazy parents have to resort to hitting because they aren't smart enough to be able to discipline their kids any other way. My parents never lay a hand on me and I was still disciplined. I was an extremely well behaved child who almost never got in trouble. In fact, almost none of my friends when I was younger had parents who hit them, and we were all honors students who stayed out of trouble, were respectful and polite, and are now successful, hard working, well behaved adults. The kids I knew who were hit were typically kids with parents who were, frankly, really trashy unsuccessful people, and the kids were in turn aggressive and got in trouble a lot. The kids whose parents were intelligent and successful seemed to have no trouble disciplining their kids by other means.

I guess our parents just had enough brain cells to rub together to figure out a way to actually teach their children things rather than just resorting to intimidation to make them behave.

It's still true today. My friends and relatives who are smart and successful don't hit their kids, and their kids are well behaved and respectful. There are a few people I work with though who are just very trashy, rude, unprofessional people who talk about how they spank or hit their kids. And then they wonder why their kids get in trouble for bullying at school.

I don't think it should be illegal, but spanking is unnecessary, and is a good way to teach kids that you can use physical force to control someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to do what you want.

I know this is a hot button item for some, but I have to agree. I never spanked or used any other corporal punishment on my kids and they've grown into well-adjusted disciplined teenagers. Our kids like us and we like them, but we are not "BFFs", we are parents and children. Growing up, I was spanked occasionally and it really did nothing to change my behavior and I'm now a semi-well-adjusted adult.

ETA: I do disagree that it is always "lazy" parents. I think it is sometimes frustrated parents. Disciplining a child is not easy, it's easier to just ignore bad behavior. Having to punish your own child causes a lot of angst, at least it does for me. And trying to get through to kids can be an exercise in a test of wills.