OH holding state should not interfere with parental discipline

......Ho hum......Perhaps Lavonne will counter with her SOPHOMORIC response "
The state sanctions CHILD ABUSE"?

If you look at Lavonne's arguments, her standard comeback is "Well, it's clear
you are a child abuser, then."

Perhaps the Judges, parents, and citizens of Ohio are all child abusers then,
and should be under the control of OH's CPS system.


http://tinyurl.com/lfn7

State v. Adaranijo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

THE STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ADARANIJO,

Appellant. :

: APPEAL NO. C-020499
TRIAL NO. 02CRB-9840


O P I N I O N .

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 18, 2003


Ernest F. McAdams Jr., Cincinnati Prosecuting Attorney, and James L.
Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee,

Bruce K. Hust, for appellant.

Mark P. Painter, Judge.
Courts should be slow to intervene between parent and child. The criminal
court is not the place to resolve petty issues of discipline. The domestic
violence laws are meant to protect against abuse, not to punish parental
discipline.
Defendant-appellant, Matthew Adaranijo, appeals his conviction for domestic
violence.1 Adaranijo was accused of hitting his teen-age daughter and of
threatening to “beat the ****� out of her. After a bench trial, the trial
court found Adaranijo guilty. We reverse.
A Slap and a “Threat�
One evening, Adaranijo’s 13-year-old daughter, Sade, wrote a paper for
school. While Sade was sleeping, Adaranijo made corrections on the paper.
The next morning, March 5, 2002, while Adaranijo drove Sade to school, they
reviewed the paper. Sade was not pleased with some of the changes that her
father had made.
Sade testified that as she pointed out her displeasure with the revised
paper, Adaranijo became angry. When she stopped reading the paper aloud,
Adaranijo allegedly slapped Sade on the left side of her face and said,
“[S]top contradicting this paper.� He told her, “If you contradict the
paper that I corrected for you one more time, I will beat the **** out of
you.� When she did not continue reading, Adaranijo said, “That’s it,�
and
told Sade, “I am going to take you somewhere nice and quiet and I am going
to beat the **** out of you.�
But Adaranijo took Sade to school, and when she hesitated to get out of the
car, he hit her on the thigh to encourage her. Sade testified that she
limped into school and went to the cafeteria to get some ice for her leg.
She did not tell anyone what had happened. A few days later, Sade went to
her mother’s for the weekend. (Adaranijo had custody of Sade, and the mother
had visitation privileges). She told her mother about the incident. The
mother immediately took Sade to a police station to file charges, but Sade
refused to go in. Later, after an unrelated dispute with Adaranijo, the
mother called the police and told them about the previous incident with
Sade. This charge was then filed.
Adaranijo testified that on the morning of March 5, Sade was not in a good
mood and was pouting. This was because he had told her that he was going to
return some new clothes that he had purchased for her, due to her poor
behavior. Adaranijo testified that Sade was also not pleased with the
changes that he had made in the paper, but that he did not get angry. When
they arrived at the school, he put the paper in her folder and tapped her on
the leg with it, shooing her out of the car so that she would not be late.
Adaranijo denied that he had slapped or punched his daughter or had
threatened to do so.
The Appeal
Adaranijo now brings two assignments of error, one through his counsel and
one pro se. Through his counsel, Adaranijo argues that his conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. A challenge to the weight of
the evidence attacks the credibility of the evidence presented.2
The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear that a challenge to the weight of
the evidence is distinct from a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence.3 In reversing Adaranijo’s conviction, we have recast his
assignment of error brought through counsel to reflect what we believe to be
the more fundamental issue underlying this case: whether Adaranijo’s
conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. If the evidence, construed
in favor of the state, is insufficient to support a conviction, then no
interpretation of the facts of the case will support a conviction.
Therefore, if a court determines, as a matter of law, that the evidence is
insufficient, the issue of whether the conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence becomes moot.
Not a Crime
In this case, Adaranijo had helped his daughter with her homework, but she
was not pleased and objected to what he had done. With the facts construed
in favor of the state, Adaranijo slapped Sade, threatened to beat her, and
then punched her in the leg as she left the car. As to the threat to “beat
the ****� out of his child — a threat he obviously did not carry out — we
surmise that it was rhetorical only. Should we jail every parent for such a
threat? Were these words made criminal, who would be free? Ralph Kramden,
who was never known to hit anyone, would be in jail forever.4
In this case, we hold that as a matter of law, the evidence was
insufficient. There was simply no evidence to indicate that Adaranijo’s
actions exceeded those within his rights under the law of parental
discipline. It does not matter whose version of the facts we believe—even
with the facts construed as most damaging to Adaranijo—he did not commit
domestic violence.
A Parent May Discipline a Child
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in raising and controlling his
or her children.5 “Indeed, that parental right is among those inalienable
rights secured by natural law which Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio
Constitution was intended to protect from infringement by the police power
of the state.�6 Of course, the state has a legitimate interest in
protecting children from harm, so domestic-violence laws can apply between
parent and child. But not in this case.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that nothing in the domestic-violence
statute prevents a parent from properly disciplining his or her child.7 The
only prohibition is that a parent may not cause “physical harm,� which is
defined as “any injury.�8 “Injury� is defined in Black’s Law
Dictionary as
“the invasion of any legally protected interest of another.�9 A child does
not have any legally protected interest that is invaded by proper and
reasonable parental discipline.10 Thus, as any corporal punishment
necessarily involves some physical harm, the harm required to constitute
domestic violence must be greater than that here. At least one court has
held that, to rise above parental discipline and become domestic violence,
the parent’s act must create “a risk of death, serious injury, or
substantial pain.�11 None of that was present here.
A parent may use corporal punishment as a method of discipline without
violating the domestic-violence statute as long as the discipline is proper
and reasonable under the circumstances.12 Here, there was no observable
injury. We are convinced that, without observable injury, or without risk
of serious physical harm, there can be no domestic-violence conviction for a
parent as a result of striking a child.13 Though reasonable parental
discipline is an affirmative defense, here the evidence not only manifestly
raised the defense, it proved it. Therefore, the trial court erred in
finding Adaranijo guilty.
Taking into account all the facts and circumstances in this case, we hold
that the discipline administered by Adaranijo to Sade was not domestic
violence. While many people differ as to whether corporal discipline should
be used, it is not the business of the courts unless the child is injured.
Therefore, we hold that, as a matter of law, Adaranijo’s actions did not
rise to a level exceeding reasonable parental discipline and, therefore, the
evidence to convict Adaranijo of domestic violence was insufficient.
Because the evidence was insufficient, we must reverse Adaranijo’s
conviction and discharge him from further prosecution.
The Pro-Se Assignment
Adaranijo, acting pro se, asserts that the trial court erred by excluding
evidence of prior false charges of domestic violence. While Adaranijo
offers no argument in support of this claim, his statement of the error
includes a reference to two pages in the transcript of the trial. Those
pages involve the testimony of Cincinnati Police Officer Tanya Cook.
Officer Cook, a witness for the defense, testified that she was called to a
domestic dispute involving Adaranijo and his former wife, June Hill, on
March 30, 2002. When defense counsel asked Officer Cook to state the
allegation concerning the family dispute, the state objected. The court
asked defense counsel about the purpose for offering such testimony, and
counsel responded, “I think it will show this was an ongoing pattern with
the mother, June Hill. She calls and files false charges against my
client.� The court allowed defense counsel to proceed only in an effort to
establish that the March 30 call to the police had nothing to do with the
March 5 incident in the car between Adaranijo and Sade.
Because of our ruling on the assignment raised by counsel, this issue is now
moot, and we need not address it. The judgment of the trial court is,
accordingly, reversed, and Adaranijo is discharged from further prosecution.


Judgment reversed
and appellant discharged.
Hildebrandt, P.J., and Gorman, J., concur

Fern5827 wrote:

.....Ho hum......Perhaps Lavonne will counter with her SOPHOMORIC response "
The state sanctions CHILD ABUSE"?

I don't ever recall saying what you have in quotes "The state sanctions CHILD
ABUSE." Perhaps you would care to post evidence where I have stated what you have
attributed to me in quotes?

If you look at Lavonne's arguments, her standard comeback is "Well, it's clear
you are a child abuser, then."

If I have ever used the words which you attribute to me in quotes "Well, it's
clear you are a child abuser, then" I suggest you post evidence where I have used
these words. When attribute a direct quote to an individual, it really is a good
idea to include evidence. Otherwise, people reading the ng may think you are
fabricating and your credibility could be at stake.

Please feel free to also send the email to me personally, where I said, as you
claim "The state sanctions CHILD ABUSE" and "Well, it's clear you are a child
abuse, then."

Me thinks you do a whole bunch of lying to make a point that few even understand
anymore. You make interesting reading though (grin).

LaVonne



Perhaps the Judges, parents, and citizens of Ohio are all child abusers then,
and should be under the control of OH's CPS system.

http://tinyurl.com/lfn7

State v. Adaranijo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

THE STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW ADARANIJO,

Appellant. :

: APPEAL NO. C-020499
TRIAL NO. 02CRB-9840

O P I N I O N .

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 18, 2003

Ernest F. McAdams Jr., Cincinnati Prosecuting Attorney, and James L.
Johnson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee,

Bruce K. Hust, for appellant.

Mark P. Painter, Judge.
Courts should be slow to intervene between parent and child. The criminal
court is not the place to resolve petty issues of discipline. The domestic
violence laws are meant to protect against abuse, not to punish parental
discipline.
Defendant-appellant, Matthew Adaranijo, appeals his conviction for domestic
violence.1 Adaranijo was accused of hitting his teen-age daughter and of
threatening to “beat the ****â€* out of her. After a bench trial, the trial
court found Adaranijo guilty. We reverse.
A Slap and a “Threatâ€*
One evening, Adaranijo’s 13-year-old daughter, Sade, wrote a paper for
school. While Sade was sleeping, Adaranijo made corrections on the paper.
The next morning, March 5, 2002, while Adaranijo drove Sade to school, they
reviewed the paper. Sade was not pleased with some of the changes that her
father had made.
Sade testified that as she pointed out her displeasure with the revised
paper, Adaranijo became angry. When she stopped reading the paper aloud,
Adaranijo allegedly slapped Sade on the left side of her face and said,
“[S]top contradicting this paper.â€* He told her, “If you contradict the
paper that I corrected for you one more time, I will beat the **** out of
you.â€* When she did not continue reading, Adaranijo said, “That’s it,â€*
and
told Sade, “I am going to take you somewhere nice and quiet and I am going
to beat the **** out of you.â€*
But Adaranijo took Sade to school, and when she hesitated to get out of the
car, he hit her on the thigh to encourage her. Sade testified that she
limped into school and went to the cafeteria to get some ice for her leg.
She did not tell anyone what had happened. A few days later, Sade went to
her mother’s for the weekend. (Adaranijo had custody of Sade, and the mother
had visitation privileges). She told her mother about the incident. The
mother immediately took Sade to a police station to file charges, but Sade
refused to go in. Later, after an unrelated dispute with Adaranijo, the
mother called the police and told them about the previous incident with
Sade. This charge was then filed.
Adaranijo testified that on the morning of March 5, Sade was not in a good
mood and was pouting. This was because he had told her that he was going to
return some new clothes that he had purchased for her, due to her poor
behavior. Adaranijo testified that Sade was also not pleased with the
changes that he had made in the paper, but that he did not get angry. When
they arrived at the school, he put the paper in her folder and tapped her on
the leg with it, shooing her out of the car so that she would not be late.
Adaranijo denied that he had slapped or punched his daughter or had
threatened to do so.
The Appeal
Adaranijo now brings two assignments of error, one through his counsel and
one pro se. Through his counsel, Adaranijo argues that his conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. A challenge to the weight of
the evidence attacks the credibility of the evidence presented.2
The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear that a challenge to the weight of
the evidence is distinct from a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence.3 In reversing Adaranijo’s conviction, we have recast his
assignment of error brought through counsel to reflect what we believe to be
the more fundamental issue underlying this case: whether Adaranijo’s
conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. If the evidence, construed
in favor of the state, is insufficient to support a conviction, then no
interpretation of the facts of the case will support a conviction.
Therefore, if a court determines, as a matter of law, that the evidence is
insufficient, the issue of whether the conviction is against the manifest
weight of the evidence becomes moot.
Not a Crime
In this case, Adaranijo had helped his daughter with her homework, but she
was not pleased and objected to what he had done. With the facts construed
in favor of the state, Adaranijo slapped Sade, threatened to beat her, and
then punched her in the leg as she left the car. As to the threat to “beat
the ****â€* out of his child — a threat he obviously did not carry out — we
surmise that it was rhetorical only. Should we jail every parent for such a
threat? Were these words made criminal, who would be free? Ralph Kramden,
who was never known to hit anyone, would be in jail forever.4
In this case, we hold that as a matter of law, the evidence was
insufficient. There was simply no evidence to indicate that Adaranijo’s
actions exceeded those within his rights under the law of parental
discipline. It does not matter whose version of the facts we believe—even
with the facts construed as most damaging to Adaranijo—he did not commit
domestic violence.
A Parent May Discipline a Child
A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in raising and controlling his
or her children.5 “Indeed, that parental right is among those inalienable
rights secured by natural law which Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio
Constitution was intended to protect from infringement by the police power
of the state.â€*6 Of course, the state has a legitimate interest in
protecting children from harm, so domestic-violence laws can apply between
parent and child. But not in this case.
The Ohio Supreme Court has held that nothing in the domestic-violence
statute prevents a parent from properly disciplining his or her child.7 The
only prohibition is that a parent may not cause “physical harm,â€* which is
defined as “any injury.â€*8 “Injuryâ€* is defined in Black’s Law
Dictionary as
“the invasion of any legally protected interest of another.â€*9 A child does
not have any legally protected interest that is invaded by proper and
reasonable parental discipline.10 Thus, as any corporal punishment
necessarily involves some physical harm, the harm required to constitute
domestic violence must be greater than that here. At least one court has
held that, to rise above parental discipline and become domestic violence,
the parent’s act must create “a risk of death, serious injury, or
substantial pain.â€*11 None of that was present here.
A parent may use corporal punishment as a method of discipline without
violating the domestic-violence statute as long as the discipline is proper
and reasonable under the circumstances.12 Here, there was no observable
injury. We are convinced that, without observable injury, or without risk
of serious physical harm, there can be no domestic-violence conviction for a
parent as a result of striking a child.13 Though reasonable parental
discipline is an affirmative defense, here the evidence not only manifestly
raised the defense, it proved it. Therefore, the trial court erred in
finding Adaranijo guilty.
Taking into account all the facts and circumstances in this case, we hold
that the discipline administered by Adaranijo to Sade was not domestic
violence. While many people differ as to whether corporal discipline should
be used, it is not the business of the courts unless the child is injured.
Therefore, we hold that, as a matter of law, Adaranijo’s actions did not
rise to a level exceeding reasonable parental discipline and, therefore, the
evidence to convict Adaranijo of domestic violence was insufficient.
Because the evidence was insufficient, we must reverse Adaranijo’s
conviction and discharge him from further prosecution.
The Pro-Se Assignment
Adaranijo, acting pro se, asserts that the trial court erred by excluding
evidence of prior false charges of domestic violence. While Adaranijo
offers no argument in support of this claim, his statement of the error
includes a reference to two pages in the transcript of the trial. Those
pages involve the testimony of Cincinnati Police Officer Tanya Cook.
Officer Cook, a witness for the defense, testified that she was called to a
domestic dispute involving Adaranijo and his former wife, June Hill, on
March 30, 2002. When defense counsel asked Officer Cook to state the
allegation concerning the family dispute, the state objected. The court
asked defense counsel about the purpose for offering such testimony, and
counsel responded, “I think it will show this was an ongoing pattern with
the mother, June Hill. She calls and files false charges against my
client.â€* The court allowed defense counsel to proceed only in an effort to
establish that the March 30 call to the police had nothing to do with the
March 5 incident in the car between Adaranijo and Sade.
Because of our ruling on the assignment raised by counsel, this issue is now
moot, and we need not address it. The judgment of the trial court is,
accordingly, reversed, and Adaranijo is discharged from further prosecution.

Judgment reversed
and appellant discharged.
Hildebrandt, P.J., and Gorman, J., concur