what would you have done if you saw this in a subway?

[Vampiress_Miyu]

Honestly, I would have notified the police and snuck a few pictures off my phone.
And quite frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with Stark on this.
My mother has hit me quite a few times, and even though both she and the mental hospital she sent me to when I was 16 say that it was pretty much okay because she "didn't hit (me) hard," two years later, I am still traumatized and terrified whenever she says things that she used to say just before hitting me.
I don't think it's ever okay to hit a child. I don't care what your reason, that is my stance.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it's OK in the most extreme situations, where the child's behavior is not merely antisocial but actually life-threatening. Making noise in public is not life-threatening. Trying to stick a fork in an electrical socket is.

The only other possible case I can think of where it's OK is when the child was doing some kind of wrongful physical violence, because there's a certain logic to it; a "see how you like it" sort of thing.

[Solauren]

"Madam, if you and your associate don't stop that immediately, I'll be forced to call the police and make a citizens arrest on charges of child abuse and assault, as well as Family Services."

It's okay to hit a child to prevent something worse then a smack to the hand / ass / endangered appendage or body part.
A light smack to the hand or ass is okay for social situations if the child is not listening.

My light I mean the level you could smack a dog or cat, and get it's attention but not cause an aggressive or 'omg he's gonna hurt me' response.

Striking the child as described is not acceptable, or even legal.

[Akhlut]

I was going to post this in a Venting thread, but it is vaguely related to this issue, so I will bring it up here for discussion.

Yesterday, I was walking through a parking lot when I noticed a baby asleep in a carseat, alone in the back of a car. It was a bright, sunny 80+ degree day, around 2 or 3 in the afternoon. There were no covers over the windows and the car was not in the shade. I also noticed that the doors were unlocked (it was the type of car where you can see the little stubs at the base of the window, and they were all the way up). There was no adult (in fact, there was NOBODY) within probably 200 feet of the car.

My wife and I saw something similar to that about 8 months ago; it was a bright, hot day and someone left their 3 or 4 kids in the car (none over 10) while the mother was inside the Dept. of Health building (we were there for our WIC stuff), so we called the cops to check it out. When we drove by a little later (we went somewhere else nearby for lunch, I think, then we drove home or to another errand, as I recall), we saw the cops there talking to her. I don't regret having done that, because even if she didn't get a ticket or a visit from the CPS, she's definitely learned to not leave her kids behind in the car next time.

Relating more to the OP: unfortunately, my phone doesn't have a built-in camera, so I'd probably have to just out and out call the cops on her ass.

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly, when people see a family with an ill-behaved dog, nobody says "they need to beat that dog more, and then it will become better behaved!" I've even seen people who advocate the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality with human children turn around and admonish anyone who would hit a dog for any reason, by (correctly) pointing out that it will actually make the dog's behaviour worse in the long term.

[jcow79]

Striking the child as described is not acceptable, or even legal.

Having looked into this since I've recently become a father of sorts to my girlfriend's 4 year old daughter, I was completely surprised as to how the laws differ from state to state. Some states are incredibly vague and some states have specifics in their codes. I wonder if the states with more vague wording have higher instances of abuse vs. the states that spell out what you're NOT allowed to do. Here's an example.

Washington State: Physical discipline is not unlawful if reasonable and moderate and inflicted by parent /teacher/guardian for restraint or correction. Presumed unreasonable if the following are used to correct/ restrain: -- Throwing, kicking, burning, cutting, striking with a closed fist, shaking a child under 3, interfering with breathing, threatening with a deadly weapon, any other act likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks. [Statute says this list is illustrative and not exclusive]. Age, size,condition of child, and location of injury are all factors in determining "reasonable" and "moderate." § 9A.16.100. [Criminal Code]

Texas: Abuse does not include reasonable discipline by a parent/guardian/managing or possessory conservator if child not exposed to substantial risk of harm. Family Code § 261.001. [Civil Code] Parent/stepparent/person standing in loco parentis to child is justified to use non-deadly force against a child under 18 when and to degree the actor reasonably believes necessary to discipline, or safeguard or promote child's welfare. Penal § 9.61. [Criminal Code]

I find something unsettling about the use of the term non-deadly in the Texas law. That seems entirely overbroad of a term when referring to the type of punishment allowed on a child.

**Edit: Added Texas to the second legal quote.

[Darth Wong]

It's Texas. You should be happy that they don't say it's OK to stone children to death if they swear in public.

[Themightytom]

it seems odd that a parent would be willing to let OTHER people discipline their child, even if its the child's sibling.

Within the boundary of beating and abuse, why? Everyone has a stake in the future, most especially when we will be feeble and the current children will be providing for us. An adult's duty is to instruct, provide discipline, and admonish all children for the child's good and the good of society.

"It takes a village"?

Not a village the size of a city, a parent can't predict how other adults will discipline their child I ahve a seriously hard time believing a rational parent would let "the village" discipline their child. parents have a problem with SCHOOLS disciplining their child.

A parent who believes that corporal punishment is an effective tool would be applying it in specific circumstances, certainly not letting SIBLINGS do it. That confuses the message they are sending to the child and dmakes it unclear as to who exactly is in charge. Especially siblings. They still ahve to raise the OLDER child you know.

The lack of consistency and the adversarial behavior represents warning signs tha this parent may not ahve a rational plan in mind is rather acting emotionally out of frustration. That is something to take not of and investigae. if the parent has a master plan of discipline I'm sure social services or DCYF will let it go assuming its not harming the child and breaks no laws.

[Darth Wong]

I would argue that the only time any kind of corporal punishment should be used against a child is when the child himself is employing violence against others (particularly those smaller than himself), and it should be of the same magnitude as what the child himself is doing. The objective is not to cow the child into obedience through the threat of violence, but to make the child understand what it feels like to be the victim of the same violence he is inflicting upon others. At no point should the behaviour itself be promoted as healthy or "correct".

[FSTargetDrone]

Yesterday, I was walking through a parking lot when I noticed a baby asleep in a carseat, alone in the back of a car. It was a bright, sunny 80+ degree day, around 2 or 3 in the afternoon. There were no covers over the windows and the car was not in the shade. I also noticed that the doors were unlocked (it was the type of car where you can see the little stubs at the base of the window, and they were all the way up). There was no adult (in fact, there was NOBODY) within probably 200 feet of the car.

In some states there are laws against leaving children under a certain age unattended in a vehicle (running or otherwise), but I don't know if people who do so are hit with anything other than a fine for first offense.

In this case, I think I would have called the cops if the parents seemed uninterested in rectifying the matter. Of course, if I wasn't able to find them in the first place, I'd immediately call the police.

Just imagine if someone else of lower character than yourself had come by, seen the unlocked car with its keys in the ignition. He could have made off with the car and child in moments.

It should be illegal to leave pets in cars like this, not to mention children.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In some states there are laws against leaving children under a certain age unattended in a vehicle (running or otherwise), but I don't know if people who do so are hit with anything other than a fine for first offense.

In this case, I think I would have called the cops if the parents seemed uninterested in rectifying the matter. Of course, if I wasn't able to find them in the first place, I'd immediately call the police.

Just imagine if someone else of lower character than yourself had come by, seen the unlocked car with its keys in the ignition. He could have made off with the car and child in moments.

It should be illegal to leave pets in cars like this, not to mention children.

Indeed, in retrospect I should have called the police. At the time, though, I was pretty worked up over seeing parents acting so recklessly, and to be honest, at the time, I had no idea what the laws are on the matter in this state. I am hoping I am never in this situation again, but if I am I will immediately call.

[Jaepheth]

Texas law, like many other places I suspect, loves the word "reasonable." But there's a lot more to it than a four line quip.

Texas Family code definitions of abuse


But more interestingly, and more pertinent to this thread, is that it's also a misdemeanor NOT to report potential child abuse to the authorities.

Sec. 261.109. FAILURE TO REPORT; PENALTY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person has cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect and knowingly fails to report as provided in this chapter.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

It also provides immunity from civil and criminal liabilities that may arise from reporting potential child abuse if the report was made in good faith.

Sec. 261.106. IMMUNITIES. (a) A person acting in good faith who reports or assists in the investigation of a report of alleged child abuse or neglect or who testifies or otherwise participates in a judicial proceeding arising from a report, petition, or investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed.

(b) Immunity from civil and criminal liability extends to an authorized volunteer of the department or a law enforcement officer who participates at the request of the department in an investigation of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect or in an action arising from an investigation if the person was acting in good faith and in the scope of the person's responsibilities.

(c) A person who reports the person's own abuse or neglect of a child or who acts in bad faith or with malicious purpose in reporting alleged child abuse or neglect is not immune from civil or criminal liability.

[Darth Wong]

The Texas state definition of "abuse" is rather, er ... "open ended".

Sec. 261.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person:

(A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;

(B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;

(C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm;

(D) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child;

(E) sexual conduct harmful to a child's mental, emotional, or physical welfare, including conduct that constitutes the offense of continuous sexual abuse of young child or children under Section 21.02, Penal Code, indecency with a child under Section 21.11, Penal Code, sexual assault under Section 22.011, Penal Code, or aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021, Penal Code;

(F) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child;

(G) compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct as defined by Section 43.01, Penal Code;

(H) causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing the photographing, filming, or depicting of the child if the person knew or should have known that the resulting photograph, film, or depiction of the child is obscene as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code, or pornographic;

(I) the current use by a person of a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner or to the extent that the use results in physical, mental, or emotional injury to a child;

(J) causing, expressly permitting, or encouraging a child to use a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; or

(K) causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing a sexual performance by a child as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code.

You could quite easily use this definition to establish that all smokers and alcoholics are automatically guilty of child abuse, simply by virtue of the fact that their habit is established through many scientific studies to have detrimental effects on their children. Not that I would expect this to actually fly in a Texas court, but it definitely falls within the text of the definition. That would actually be hilarious, and not without some justification.

More disturbingly, it seems like you could use it to declare that all homosexuals are guilty of child abuse, since many people in Texas believe that mere knowledge of homosexuality causes emotional injury to children, and Section 1(E) does not distinguish between sexual activities that do or do not directly involve the child.

[Superboy]

I think in a lot of cases, the fact that a parent would even feel the need to physically punish their child speaks a lot about their parenting skills. When my sister’s husband died while she was pregnant, I lived with her for several years helping with the child. Not once did either of us ever physically punish the child, and there was no point when I ever felt it would help. If she was doing something bad, simply telling her not to in a firm voice was always enough to get her to stop.

I realize this is completely anecdotal and useless for the argument, but the idea of needing to smack a kid to make them behave seems so bizarre to me. At most, I could imagine a situation where you need to physically hold a child in place to prevent them from doing something harmful to themselves or others, but actually hitting them because it's easier for you as a parent is lazy and bordering on barbaric. Imagine a social worker slapping a mentally disabled adult for being too loud or disruptive in public.

It seems self evident that using physical force on a child will have long-term effects on your relationship with them.

[PeZook]

As DW said, the only time when it seems appropriate is when the child is using physical force against others, and then not really as punishment per se, but as an example of what it feels like for their victim. The real punishment should be making them apologize to their victim, and denying of priviledges if they're obstinate about it.

Seriously, what is hitting the child for being loud supposed to accomplish?

[jcow79]

Texas law, like many other places I suspect, loves the word "reasonable." But there's a lot more to it than a four line quip.

(C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm;/

The fact that it states that

Abuse does NOT include reasonable discipline

and the abuse definition EXEMPTS discipline leaves a lot of room for beating the crap out of disciplining a kid in Texas, provided you demonstrate he "had it coming". Ie. You didn't just come home from work grumpy and took it out on your kid rather you came home from work grumpy and he hadn't done his chores.

[Logical Mike]

No doubt I would have said something to the female and her associate smacking the shit out of a child in public. Now I don't utilize violence in raising my kid, but I'm not opposed to a little sugar smack if they are openly devient or defiant.While it's not my way, I can say nobody can quantify the effectiveness of the action but the child and the parent.

My bigger issue is the second person. WTF? If I'm scolding my child and you choose to take it open yourself to assist, be ready for me to tell you to fuck off. Much less this second person actually abusing the child as the case here.

I don't like people who think they can raise my children. I don't like people who allow abuse to happen, and I don't like people who go overly hippie in their methods either.

[Covenant]

You start with decent point, but you hitch it to internet toughguy language defending your right to whack your child, even if you define yours as a 'sugar smack' instead of the strike others might see it. If you're smacking your kid then I'll reserve my right to get overly hippie on your child-abusing sack-of-shit ass. If that's irksome then you should just keep your pointless child abuse behind closed doors. Now obviously there's a difference between scolding and slapping the crap out of, which I believe you stated properly, but the moronical "If you're not the parent then you don't know" is just flat-out wrong, so that's why I'm distorting what you said and taking it to an extreme. What one parent might see as a completely inoffensive punishment might actually be a very detrimental abuse of physical correction--especially since physically whacking a kid is nearly never effective and nearly always damaging for long-term health. Parents are capable of making poor choices with their children, especially if they're using physical punishment for 'defiance' or other broad and ethically ambigious offenses.

So that sounds like a load of horseshit to me, as well as the trite "hippie" reference, which just smacks of a canned response to a legitimate criticism.

[raptor3x]

In short, you can praise people you see hitting their kids in public if you like. Wait ten years, and those kids will be bogans. Congratulations.

I had never heard this term before but interestingly enough, there is a rather well known family in the US table tennis community who are widely known for having some of the worst behaved children (who grew into maladjusted adults) around. The last name of the family is Boggan; what a funny coincidence.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Doesn't a thread like this come up every few months or so? I really wish I had the time to find the last one because I participated there too. Basically a physical abuse question/article pops up, and all the pro-abusers come out of the woodwork, all repeating the 'It worked for meeee!' argument, and are soundly slapped down with actual studies and research. A few months later, like right now, an article comes up, and it's almost as if the pro-abusers want to forget how soundly they were slapped down last time, thus the process repeats itself.

The selective memory/walls of ignorance are astounding.

[Cairber]

I think most people in the USA probably consider any family who does not use some form of corporal punishment to be "hippie" and their methods "overly hippie." Apparently I am an uber mega granola hippie freak, but at least my kids are pretty well behaved without having to use violence on them and without having to teach through pain. (I base this on the fact that, statistically speaking, most US parents spank and many have negative reactions to movements to cease spanking- I have lots of articles on this but I have posted them in other threads before....)

And speaking of pain, it never ceases to amaze me the way parents will try and both spank and maintain that they only "pop" or "light swat"; those types are just deluding themselves, in my opinion. There would be no point to "popping" or "swatting" if not to cause pain; what is the stimulus that the child is reacting to if not pain? If you are going to teach by 'popping' without pain, why not touch their shoulder or tap their knee or something equally painless? I think it has to do a lot with guilt when I have other parents telling me they use "spanking" but try to pass "their way of spanking" off as painless/harmless.


on this argument coming up before: I do remember physical punishment coming up before, but I thought this article was interesting because it brought up issues of public displays, different reactions, and race.

[frogcurry]

I'd probably make it obvious I was watching them to see if they showed some restraint as a result. And I'd be supportive of someone else intervening. But I wouldn't verbally or physically intervene myself short of the child being in real danger of bodily harm, not just mild harm (i.e. bruises) or pain. As a single young man, I'd probably get hassled more than the parent in question for saying anything, and no police would listen to my opinion on appropriate force in child-rearing.

[Simon_Jester]

I think most people in the USA probably consider any family who does not use some form of corporal punishment to be "hippie" and their methods "overly hippie."

I'm not so sure.

Look here; this is a report on the issue from ABC's website, dating back to about 2002, talking about Gallup poll results on spanking (probably the most common single form of corporal punishment applied to children, and one acceptable to almost anyone who will accept any kind of it, I'd think).

It says that about 65% of Americans approve of spanking children, but only 50% of parents who actually have minor children do it. So some of those pro-spankers are people whose attitudes toward childrearing were formed in the 1950s; it's not hard to see why they haven't changed their minds lately.

Now, if you consider all forms of spanking and similar corporal punishment child abuse, those numbers remain appalling. Even if you think it's a "seldom but sometimes justifiable" thing, they're alarming. But consider: with numbers like that, almost half of all parents don't spank their children, period, and never did. They're not going to think you're a hippie for doing as they do. And since there's bound to be a spectrum of opinions on spanking ranging from "all spanking all the time" to "only in emergencies," there will be plenty of pro-spankers who can understand refusing to physically punish a child, because they're not that many steps away from such a position themselves.

Now, with 65% of those polled in 2002 approving of spanking, it's still at least possible that "most" (which is to say, about 3/4 of all pro-spankers, excluding only the 1/4 who favor it the least) Americans think you must be some kind of hippie for not spanking your child. But if you exclude people who are old and whose opinions were formed in a less refined era, including only people who actually havechildren... it's almost inconceivable that a majority of parents think so.

[Surlethe]

Here are three situations for discussion. Questions for each scenario: is the action justified? Is the applied discipline harmful or helpful in the long run? And if you were a parent, would you make similar decisions? (Of course, more comments and thorough analysis is welcome.)

[1] A baby has just learned how to crawl and is enthusiastically scooting all over the place. The baby and parents live in a two-story house with carpeted steps running from the first floor to the upstairs. One day, the mother takes the baby up to the top of the stairs, sets her at the brink, and lets her tumble down two or three stairs. The stairs are carpeted and soft; the situation is controlled, and the baby suffers no physical harm. After the scare, the baby stays away from the lip of stairs.

[2] A baby has learned to use her hands and whenever she's held she tries to take off the parent's glasses. So to dissuade the behavior, every time she reaches for glasses she receives a flick on the hand. She quickly learns not to reach for glasses.

[3] A young toddler is just learning to walk. Her mother and father decide it's time to teach her to come when called, so they take her and have her stand by one wall. Dad stands at the other end of the room and calls her to come over to him. If she chooses not to come over to where Dad is, she receives a flick on the hand; then the parent goes back across the room and tries again. If she does come over, then she is rewarded with great praise and perhaps a little bit of candy. If she is confused and doesn't know what is going on, one parent leads her to the other and then she is praised. She quickly learns to come when called.

[Cairber]

All the stats I have are from 1995-2002, so it is great to hear that attitudes are changing.

on the other hand, I read this a few days ago:

news article on moms who spank their infants