In this day and age, many parents and child rearing experts believe that spanking or other corporal punishment of children should never be allowed, while others take the more traditional approach. The Maryland courts have ruled that there is such a thing as reasonable corporal punishment, but Departments of Social Services who investigate claims of child abuse struggle with defining what may be reasonable. Two cases from the Office of Administrative hearings reported in the Daily Record this week illustrate this issue.
Maryland’s highest appellate has ruled on the difference between reasonable punishment of a child, and child abuse. The Court in a 2004 opinion, Charles County Department of Social Services v. Vann, ruled that by definition reasonable corporal punishment is not child abuse. Determining whether corporal punishment is reasonable, the Court has held, depends on a consideration of all the circumstances, including the age of the child in question, whether that child is capable of understanding the nature of the punishment, and whether the decision to employ such punishment under the particular circumstances may have increased the risk of serious injury.
In the Vann case, the Court addressed whether the use of a belt with a buckle to swing at a running 6 year old met the definition of reasonable punishment. On those facts, the Court agreed with Social Services that the actions of the adult were not reasonable.
The first of the recent cases, styled Appellant v. Prince George’s County Department of Social Services, involved a father of an 8 year old and 9 year old. The older child had returned home after eye surgery, and the father told his sons not to fight and risk further injury to the older son. When the boys fought anyway and the youngster scratched his brother in the face, the father took a bamboo cooking spoon and spanked him three times. They then sat down to discuss what had occurred. When the boy acted up during the discussion, the father attempted to tap him with the spoon on top of his head to get his attention, but the boy moved and the spoon struck his face resulting in some red splotches.
The Department notified the father they found him responsible for child abuse, and he appealed this finding to the Office of Administrative Hearings. After weighing the facts, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the Department had not established child abuse. While saying that not everyone would choose this method of punishment, the Judge felt that the local department did not prove that the tap on the head was unreasonable. The Departments finding was stricken, with instructions to expunge the identity of the father as an alleged or suspected child abuser.
The second case, Appellant v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, involved a 9 year old with Attention Deficit Disorder with severe behavioral problems. The parent struck him with an extension cord from a clock, attempting to hit him in the buttocks, but he jumped and was truck on the hands, arm and leg leaving red marks. The boy told his teacher that his mother had punched him in the face and beaten him with the cord because the school had called about his behavior. This Judge was troubled by the use of the extension cord, but found that under all the circumstances the Department had not proven the effort to spank him unreasonable.
These cases illustrate the difficult balancing act the law does in attempting to prevent child abuse, while maintaining what the courts have said is a parent’s right to reasonably punish a child.