Parent's Right To Spank Lies At Heart Of Custody Case

Scripps-McClatchy ^ | June 17, 2002 | Mereva Brown

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The part banning military troops from being used against civilians, which did not happen at Wacco and did not force Koresh to order his followers to torch the compound.

You're not defending Reno and Clinton's action at Waco are you? That was exactly the type of government abuse that's in this story, a lot harsher but still heavy handed and unconstitutional.

[Nonstatist]

A little alliteration for the leftist. No worry though, government power grows by the hour, so you can relax. Somewhere, somehow, some beauracrat is torturing some middle class housewife for leaving her kids in the car while she ran into 7-11 to get milk. But, hey.. it's for the children.

[nmh]

"It's not about "the right to spank." It's about the "right" to spank with an object (in this case a belt) so hard that the child is injured. The law of the state in question clearly states that parents have a right to spank their children on the rear with an open hand. This means you don't get to punch your child in the face, whip them with electrical cords, hit them with sticks, etc."

I prefer a wooden dowel for a swat on the rear. THe "state" doesn't dictate what is used to spank a child. YOu clearly misunderstood what is going on and injected your own bias. Re-read this story. BTW, the "state" doesn't have the right to dictate how a parent punishes a child. Their only concern is that serious injury is not the result. A loving parent SPANKS their child and doesn't inflict permanent injury. An unloving parent uses the ineffective "reason me silly" verbal approach and then wonders why their child is out of control and ill behaved.

[RobRoy]

Hey, what happened to livelarge. I saw nothing offensive and was enjoying myself. Did I miss something?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

I suspect he's a troll who's been here before and banned.

[RobRoy]

I suppose it is unusual for someone to get an ID and immediately start posting like they'd been here for years...

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Yes I noticed that too. He had no problem formatting HTML and replying quickly to other posters. He had some experience with this...

[Jason_b]

In post #60 I responded to post #22 and said I'd post a link. Here it is.

link

Since you appear to have been exposed to law as it is practiced in the real world, would you be kind enough to scan it and tell me where it rates on the bull5hit meter? I'm guessing fairly high. Yet, it seems the government is using some trick that the public doesn't understand to compel us to jump through more and more bureaucratic hoops, and submit to more restrictions. Such that now we don't even feel that we can discipline our children with corporeal punishment, or if we do, had better do it in private as if we know we are doing something we can get in trouble for if seen. That not freedom to raise your child. And the guys at the link may be grasping at straws to come up with an explanation and a cure. It may be BS and it may make them look like wacked out weirdos. But I can see what it is that is driving them to it: the tightening of the government boa constrictor around them, around us all.

If there are any lawyers or even judges at freerepublic who care to comment, please do.

[apillar]

My advice would be for you to read the information in this link.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

It is primarly related to tax protest arguments, but it also addresses but it also applies to many of the legal "arguments" addressed in the link you posted.

The truth is I wish the information in the link would work (I would probably use it my self), but in all honesty it's probably just wishful thinking thats not going to work 99.9% of the time.

[Jason_b]

Thank you for the link and answer!

Regards

[Apogee]

<< You don't have to be a CBS lackie to want to protect children. The problem is that some focus more on the protection of children, while others... >>

The problem is the notion that regulations can ever fit the real world. The best a beureaucratic mindset can do is aim for the middle. The problem is that the mean is a nonexistant real world number. Exactly half of the situations that arise will fall above this imaginary line, and half below, resulting in a hundred percent dissatisfaction with the new law (regulation) and a clamor for another to correct the problem.

This is nowhere more obvious than in the child protective services industry. I have seen children taken into state custody on no more than their word that they didn't speak English and that their parents dropped them off in a home and left no forwarding number, and I have seen others left and abused. Worse, I have seen some moved from home to home to home in a perpetual state of abuse, each place as bad or worse than the supposed bad place they were originally taken from - no matter how much they screen, abusers are more than glad to volunteer, and be paid, to take on a new victim/slave, and many make it through the process.
I once was appalled to find that a child was moved regularly by the dss to new foster homes, and allowed NO contact with previous friends or "family" members, in order to "protect his privacy". Very little physical abuse I can think of can compare to this state sponsored lack of roots.
In general, my experience leads me to believe that they err more often when they take some one away from his family, but I have seen some left, with "lacerations" excused away because the mother was under a lot of stress, and the father knowing that to even raise the issue of spousal or possible child abuse, or a family history of deep rooted abuse of many kinds, would only get him the label of the vindictive ex.
I would agree, if the cops aren't there, making an arrest with probable cause and due process and all those other things, then no one should be there (though I would not rule out the notion that there is an acceptable place for the forceful instruction of an errant parent (or spouse) by a concerned relative or neighbour, in which case the appropriate authourity ought not be there).
Anyhow, there's my two cents for the day.

[RobRoy]

We agree 100%. Apparently, one of us is redundant, heh, heh.

I sometimes think things really were better when your children were your "property" and responsibility, giving you the authority that accompanies it, and none of the states business, no matter how you treated them.

'Course, as one famous man said, "The less virtuous a people, the greater their need for law." They sure have missed the mark in this case however

[justicefile]

If you think that is a travisty of justice, how about this:

Did you know that in some states if you are found guilty (by any means) of child abuse because you spank a child you have to register as a SEX OFFENDER even though you did NOT commit a sex crime?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

No, didn't know that about laws in some states but more important I'm suprised you found this thread, completely forgot I had posted it.