Mom's discipline not abuse, Isle judges rule: The Hawai'i Supreme

Mom's discipline not abuse, Isle judges rule

By Ken Kobayashi

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...64/1001/NEWS20



The Hawai'i Supreme Court issued a major ruling last week on the
question: At what point does the use of corporal punishment cross the
line to criminal child abuse?

In a 3-2 decision, the high court ruled that a mother was not guilty of
child abuse for hitting her 14-year-old daughter with a backpack, a
plastic hanger, a small brush and the plastic handle of a tool. The high
court reversed a jury's verdict that had convicted the mother.

Chief Justice Ronald Moon and two associate justices said the actions of
Ijeva Matavale, the mother, fall under the law that permits parents to
use force in disciplining their children.

Two other justices dissented, suggesting the decision will permit any
parent to lose control and inflict the same type of harm.

The clash among the justices underscores the point that what is abuse to
one person is discipline to another.

"People feel very differently about using force for parental
discipline," said Deputy Public Defender Deborah Kim, one of the
mother's lawyers on the appeal. "Some people would never hit a child,
but for other people, it's necessary."

State law makes it illegal for parents to "physically abuse" their
children, but Hawai'i law also allows parents to use force if it's
appropriate for the age and size of the child and if it's related to
helping the minor, including punishment for misconduct. The force,
however, cannot cause serious injury or extreme pain.

In his 44-page opinion, Moon wrote that the ruling does not send any
message about future cases because each must be reviewed separately.

"Clearly, there is no bright line that dictates what, under all
circumstances, is unreasonable or excessive corporal punishment," Moon
wrote.

But in Matavale's case, her use of force "falls within the bounds of
parental discipline," he wrote.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE

Child abuse has been a recurring controversial issue. In a current
extreme case, parents Denise and Melvin Wright Jr. are charged with
trying to murder their 12-year-old daughter by starving her.

The high court's decision deals with far less egregious circumstances,
but it concerns an issue about the use of force that any parent of a
rebellious or disobedient child can appreciate.

The differences in opinion on that issue are reflected throughout
Matavale's case.

Her first trial ended with a hung jury. The jury in the second trial
indicated it was deadlocked before it eventually returned the guilty
verdict. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but
the appeal to the state's highest court resulted in a reversal.

Previous high court and appeals court decisions provide a framework of
the boundaries of what parents can do.

Here are several court decisions involving convictions of abusing a
household member:

# The boyfriend of the mother of a 14-year-old daughter punished the
girl who didn't bring home a daily progress school report from the
counselor, and instead filled out the report herself, altering grades
and her attendance record. The boyfriend punished her for half an hour
by hitting her on both sides of her face, knocking her to the ground;
threw her on the bed; yanked off her pants and underwear; and whacked
her bottom. He also hit her with a plastic baseball bat until it broke.
The girl suffered bruising on her buttocks, arm, thigh and torso. The
conviction was affirmed.

# A father was involved in a beating that included slapping and punching
his 14-year-old daughter in the face, kicking her in the shin and face
and pulling her ears. The girl suffered bruises and cuts. She had been
beaten after she continued to see an 18-year-old boyfriend against her
parents' wishes and ran away with him on a day she was supposed to be
examined to determine if she was pregnant. She was later beaten after
the father and his wife confronted the daughter about the relationship
with the boyfriend and the girl didn't respond. The conviction was affirmed.

# A father struck his 14-year-old daughter above the knees with a
36-inch long belt and cut her waist-long hair to make it level with her
neck. The daughter suffered bruises for about a week. The father did not
want his daughter's friends at the home because he thought they were a
bad influence and warned he would spank her if she disobeyed. He used
the belt after he came home and found the friends there. When he told
them to leave, they refused. The conviction was reversed because the
high court ruled the pain was not severe enough.

# A father slapped his daughter in the face, punched her in the
shoulders multiple times with a fist and later again slapped her. She
suffered bruises and a scratch to her shoulder. The hitting occurred
after the daughter stood face-to-face with the father and used
profanity. The conviction was reversed.

POOR GRADES

In Matavale's case, Moon gave a lengthy background:

The daughter received poor grades, including two F's, but agreed to get
tutoring. The daughter, however, skipped tutoring classes and hung out
with friends. On the day her report card was due, the daughter — even
though she was reminded by the mother to bring it home — said she forgot
it at school, but eventually disclosed her grades included four C's, one
D and one incomplete.

When the mother demanded to know why the grades hadn't improved, the
daughter refused to answer. The mother then grabbed a plastic backpack
containing a school folder and jacket and hit the daughter on the left
arm as the girl tried to block the blow.

The daughter disclosed she had not been going to tutoring. When the
mother demanded to know where she had gone instead, the girl refused to
answer, prompting the mother to hit her with a plastic hanger about five
times.

When the girl said she had been hanging out with friends, the mother
felt deceived, got a small car brush and hit the daughter on the top of
the left hand and on the knuckles with a plastic handle of a tool.

"It was wrong, but I did it for a purpose," the mother testified. "I
just wanted the best for my daughter."

The daughter was large for her age, 5 feet 4 or 5 and 154 pounds at the
trial, which took place about four months after the incident. The mother
was larger.

The daughter suffered bruises to her left forearm, but no cuts or more
severe injuries, such as fractures.

POLICE INFORMED

Police became involved in the case when a teacher or counselor
apparently spoke to the girl when she went back to school. A police
officer was called by the school and he met with the girl.

In her dissent, Associate Justice Paula Nakayama wrote the evidence did
support the conviction and she would not second-guess the jury's verdict.

Moon wrote that the mother's actions fell under the justified parental
discipline law.

"The dissent attempts to portray mother as an out-of-control parent who
repeatedly used various implements to discipline daughter for her poor
performance in school," he wrote. "However ... the evidence reveals the
mother disciplined daughter for her continuously defiant behavior in
refusing to answer mother's questions and in lying to her."

The evidence, Moon wrote, was not enough to support the conviction.

Matavale could not be reached for comment, but Kim said her client was
pleased with the high court's ruling.

The decision sets aside the conviction and Matavale's sentence of two
days in jail and two years of probation.

HAWAI' I SUPREME COURT OPINIONS ON PARENTAL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

"Our opinion today should not in any way be construed as an expression
of approval of the parental conduct that precipitated the prosecution of
the matter before us.

"Neither should our opinion be viewed as an endorsement, or any kind, of
the use by parents of corporal punishment of their children. It is
common knowledge that the utility -- not to mention the simple humanity
-- of corporal punishment as a parental tool is the subject of
considerable controversy within American society.

"Nevertheless, it is equally obvious that the permissibility of corporal
punishment reflects a societal judgment that falls well within the
parameters of legitimate and constitutional legislative policy-making."

- Chief Justice Ronald Moon, quoting from a previous court decision and
applying it to the current case. Moon was joined by Associate Justice
Steven Levinson.

"In sum, I share in the plurality's discomfort with condemning the
mother for her actions in the present case. Most assuredly, even the
most pious of parents are susceptible to the unique aggravation caused
by the disrespect, disobedience, or deception of their offspring,
capable of triggering an uncharacteristic parental reaction.

"Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the plurality's decision
...... that the facts presented cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a
case of abuse."

- Associate Justice Paula Nakayama, who was joined by Associate Justice
Jim Duffy.

"With respect to mother's parental justification defense, the decisions
of this court cannot be read to prohibit the use of physical force in
disciplining children altogether.

"The use of parent force is permissible under the penal law, for under
appropriate circumstances, 'a parent might justifiably believe the use
of physical force was the only proper alternative left to the parent to
fulfill his obligation under (state law) to control his or her child's
conduct.'"

- Associate Justice Simeon Acoba, citing a previous court ruling. He
wrote a concurring opinion that the conviction should be reversed.

Reach Ken Kobayashi at .




PARENTAL DISCIPLINE LAW

State law permits parents, guardians or others similarly responsible for
the care of minors to use force against their children. The use of force
is justified if:

"The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor
and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting
the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the
minor's misconduct, and

"The force used is not designed to cause or known to create a risk of
causing substantial bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental
distress, or neurological damage."

CHILD ABUSE LAW

State law says it's unlawful to "physically abuse a family or household
member," a misdemeanor that carries up to a year in jail. First-time
violators must serve a mandatory two-day jail term.

Source: Hawai'i Revised Statutes
spacer spacer


FACTS OF THE CASE

# Mother of 14-year-old girl hit her daughter for hanging out with
friends instead of attending a tutoring class to improve her poor grades.

# A jury convicted the mother of abuse.

# Hawai'i Supreme Court overturned the conviction.






CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...