When did this "Law" go into effect????

[Roberta]

This is on top of my list of one of the most ridiculous things I have heard lately.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter - Fox News Latino

 

[withrespect]

This is on top of my list of one of the most ridiculous things I have heard lately.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter - Fox News Latino

OH FOR THE LOVE OF BUTTONS!!!

 

[pelers]

That is one of those things I'd be really interested to hear a bit of background about.

As a general rule, I think if you are "spanking" hard enough to leave marks, that's too hard. The point of a spanking is to get the child's attention and let them know that you mean business. Not to injure them. In my happy little world, at least.

Reading about this from a few other news sources some commentors did bring up some good points. The child could just have super sensitive skin that turns red and stays red for a long time. It's not that uncommon. Perhaps the child did something incredibly dangerous, like running out into traffic, and panicked mom hit a little harder than intended. Or perhaps she really did just hit the child harder than was warranted.

From Texas Attorney General:

Is spanking okay?

Texas law allows the use of force, but not deadly force, against a child by the child's parent, guardian, or other person who is acting in loco parentis. Most parents do, in fact, use corporal punishment (in the form of spanking) at least occasionally, and most do not, in fact, consider it abusive. Experts disagree about the advisability of ever spanking a child. Some say that, combined with other methods of discipline, mild spanking of a small child is harmless and effective. Others claim that other methods of discipline work as well as spanking or better, and that spanking is not necessary. Many child advocates and experts in child development contend that all forms of corporal punishment, including spanking, are harmful. Most believe that spanking an infant is always inappropriate. The law does not attempt to arbitrate between the different views on the best method of disciplining a child. What we do know is that severe corporal punishment can be extremely damaging and dangerous, and this is what the law prohibits as abuse.

From Texas Family Law:

Family Code Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 151, Section 151.001

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT. (a) A parent of a child has the following rights and duties:

(2) the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the child;

Family Code Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 261, Subchapter A, Section 261.001

DEFINITIONS. In this chapter1) "Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person:

(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;

But yeah, it seems totally outrageous to me. I can't seem to find a solid definition of "substantial harm," but personally I don't think red marks without bruising make the cut.

 

[Merlin99]

That is one of those things I'd be really interested to hear a bit of background about.

As a general rule, I think if you are "spanking" hard enough to leave marks, that's too hard. The point of a spanking is to get the child's attention and let them know that you mean business. Not to injure them. In my happy little world, at least.

Reading about this from a few other news sources some commentors did bring up some good points. The child could just have super sensitive skin that turns red and stays red for a long time. It's not that uncommon. Perhaps the child did something incredibly dangerous, like running out into traffic, and panicked mom hit a little harder than intended. Or perhaps she really did just hit the child harder than was warranted.

From Texas Attorney General:


But yeah, it seems totally outrageous to me.

That's not 100% true, the point of spanking is to cause some amount of pain. Pain is just about the best teacher of the young ever devised, how many times do you burn your fingers on a hot pot before you learn? how many times do you kick an immovable object? The world doesn't care about the laws of Texas and will continue to cause pain and children will continue to learn from that.

 

[pelers]

That's not 100% true, the point of spanking is to cause some amount of pain. Pain is just about the best teacher of the young ever devised, how many times do you burn your fingers on a hot pot before you learn? how many times do you kick an immovable object? The world doesn't care about the laws of Texas and will continue to cause pain and children will continue to learn from that.

The age of the child in question here is a bit shy of 2 years old. If your middle schooler is misbehaving, yeah, a bit of pain is probably in order. A child that young? No. Not in my opinion. But, I don't have a child that age, so perhaps my opinion will change when I reach that point. I hope not.

 

[Sweet 16]

The age of the child in question here is a bit shy of 2 years old. If your middle schooler is misbehaving, yeah, a bit of pain is probably in order. A child that young? No. Not in my opinion. But, I don't have a child that age, so perhaps my opinion will change when I reach that point. I hope not.

I generally agree with your posts but I think a middle-schooler is a little old for spanking. I don't think a 2-year-old is too young to learn about consequences though -- you can't reason with them at that age, but a whack on the bottom will surely get their attention and make them understand that YOU, not they, are the boss! JMHO