As the decision states, the attorney for the child did not support a finding. All this means is that the child instructed the attorney to not support a finding. The attorney has no other obligation but to represent the clients wishes. In a practical sense, in NY family court, when the child can give an opinion, the child’s attorney does not look at the facts, determine what is in the child’s best interest, and advocate for that position. In this case it is quite possible that the child changed his story, withheld some information from children’s services, or just did not cooperate at all. This is very common for children this age once children’s services gets involved (unless they really hate the parent which even then it’s hard when you are considered a snitch). And while this might have been plain to all the parties involved through various pre-trial hearings, conferences and reports to the court, it’s possible none of this information made it into the trial record (but was known to the judge) as the evidentiary standard under the family court act is different for trials vs. all other types of hearings/conferences.

We just don’t know if any of this applies andwe shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

Stating the obvious: And she, and you, want our sympathy now because the system has just caught up to her obviously complete inability to raise socialized children?

To state something not so obvious, the evidence that parenting plays much of a role in terms of adolescent anti-social behavior is very thin. Genetics and the child’s peer group are probably much more important. Talk to immigrants from non-Western countries sometime who are raising children in the U.S.: many will tell you they barely understand their kids because the kids are spending all their time hanging out with Americans and adopting American values and social norms themselves. The parents have almost no power to control this.

Randy – thank you. :)

Readers of this blog know the consequences of a conviction for domestic battery.

jccamp:But the mother should perhaps have tanned the son’s hide long before he reached 15 years and 5’10″.

Maybe she did.

Crunchy Frog:
More likely he’s out of the picture entirely, if he was ever more than a sperm donor to begin with.

And you infer that from what? The tried and true Internet axiom that absence of evidence
is evidence of absence?

Had my kid in a Target once, when she was three years old. We picked out some candy, among our other shopping. When we got to the checkout lane, she wanted out of the cart. She walked up to the candy display.

I said, “We aren’t getting any of that. We already have candy.”

She didn’t look at me, but put out her hand as if to take some.

I said, “If you touch that, I will spank you.”

She still didn’t look at me, but withdrew her hand and continued to peruse the candy with her hands behind her back.

There were some gray-haired ladies in line behind me and one of them remarked, “That’s not something you often see nowadays.”

Had a very easy time through adolescence and the teen years, although I don’t think my husband and I can take all credit for this – I’m not much of a blank-slater. At 22.5 yrs and launched from our household, she continues to be a delight.

Laura(southernxyl): Well, I sure did. Around here, teaching a boy to respect his mama is the dad’s job. Hopefully he leads by example.

More likely he’s out of the picture entirely, if he was ever more than a sperm donor to begin with.

I am not saying the mother is necessarily being a good parent the rest of the time. Really if it came to that, either the kid is very troubled, or the kid has some sort of neurological problem (I did as a kid, but it was less pronounced by 15).

I am not drawing a whole lot from the lack of mention of the father from this because for all we know this could have happened at a time when the father was at the office. Or the father might not be present. We don’t have enough information.

One lesson I AM drawing from this, though, in conjunction with watching my own children grow up as well as watching children of friends, is that there is a tremendous hesitation in this culture to discipline children AT ALL, and that this is leading to tremendous problems. The most whiney, hard to please kids are those who are never disciplined. And this acting out then persists well beyond where it should because the child hasn’t developed a sense of place within the family.

“The finding of neglect in this case is based on a single physical confrontation…”

Better late than never. But the mother should perhaps have tanned the son’s hide long before he reached 15 years and 5’10″. Not an ideal way to end the argument, but the son needed to learn the consequences of smacking a female, especially one who happened to be a parent.

One more thing to consider: children often test boundaries to see what they can get away with. This is especially true for children at certain ages (including adolescence). I have watched my 5-year-old son occasionally pick fights which are quite obviously mere attempts at seeking punishment. If you don’t enforce such lines, sometimes quite rigorously, the child feels unloved and not a part of the social unit of the family.

Dobson compared this phenomenon to a watchman at night trying doors that are supposed to be locked. He turns the knobs and pushes or pulls but he hopes the doors won’t open.

Five years old is an appropriate age for this behavior. Fifteen, not so much. It’s been my nonscientific observation that the kids who act out at that age are the least mature ones.

I also think traditional corporal punishment is a two-edged sword. People react to being hit in very specific ways and these aren’t always what one wants out of punishing one’s child. At the same time, in specific cases (where there is a fundamentally problematic relationship as would seem to be the case here), it can be helpful. Keeping it to a rare occurrence also makes it more effective when used.

One more thing to consider: children often test boundaries to see what they can get away with. This is especially true for children at certain ages (including adolescence). I have watched my 5-year-old son occasionally pick fights which are quite obviously mere attempts at seeking punishment. If you don’t enforce such lines, sometimes quite rigorously, the child feels unloved and not a part of the social unit of the family.

I would certainly hope that out of the confrontation at issue here, everyone benefited from the episode. I fear, however with the intervention of the state, that might not be the case.

David Chesler: As any parent who has been mugged by the government knows, she’s caught between two unpleasant alternatives: discipline the son and it’s neglect-by-abuse, or don’t discipline him and it’s neglect by teaching him to disdain authority.

Catch-22.

This is why so many sensible couples choose to pass on children.

I am. You just haven’t noticed….:)

But my brief exposure to family law courts indicates to me that although the parent may not be subject to criminal prosecution, the family courts react to any use of force whatsoever as a reason to alter the parent-child relationship. That is, if mom and dad are fighting for custody of their kid, then the parent that spanks will not be favored by the judge in the least. So much for having a law to protect the parents from spanking their children.

I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the mother for all the blame. When a kid is 15 years old, there are other influences for his behavior than just the mom. There’s the father, friends, friends’ parents, schools, gangs, etc. He might be abusing drugs or alcohol which could have a big impact on his behavior.

Ultimately, the parents should be held responsible, but where is the father? What limitations did the father put on the mother’s ability to dominate the son? Is the father still around, and if not then how recently did he leave?

It’s not so simple as June and Ward telling Beaver to clean his room.

Dave N.: It is interesting that slapping her son was not considered the abusive act, but rather hitting him with the shoe was.

I’d have liked more information about that. Was it a flat heel or a spike? If it was flat, I don’t see how she can be faulted for using any more than was reasonably necessary to repel the kid’s attack. If it was a spike, I’m not so sure.

Guy: One of the (many, many) sad things about this is how quick everyone is to take sides in the dispute, or use it to make a pet political point.

You’re right! How dare anyone exercise judgment or try to draw larger conclusions!

All these… judgmental conclusion draw-ers! They just burn me up!

Next thing you know, they’ll have opinions!

Randy: Theo: “Last time I checked (and someone might know a lot more about this than I do), a lot of abusive boyfriends and husbands grew up in houses in which it was seen as acceptable to hit women. If men don’t grow up by seeing their mother and sisters treated well, they are much, much more likely to be abusers.”Absolutely. I fear for any women this son dates, as this will be a problem in the future.We don’t have all the facts, and every family has different dynamics, so it’s useless to speculate as to whether the son is crazy or the mother, or both. Nonetheless, it’s safe to argue that the family situation is not ideal. Violence of this sort should never be tolerated within a family.A friend of mine points out that when children act like this, somewhere along the line they failed to learn respect from the parents. Parents need to teach respect, and they also have to earn it from their children — it’s a two way street. Parents need to respect each other as well, and sometimes that’s not the case.

Gosh Randy, why can’t you be this wise and reasonable in your political posts? ;-)

Crunchy Frog says:

Apropos of absolutely nothing, but did anyone else notice the conspicuous absence of the word “father”?

Well, I sure did. Around here, teaching a boy to respect his mama is the dad’s job. Hopefully he leads by example.

Absolutely. I fear for any women this son dates, as this will be a problem in the future.

We don’t have all the facts, and every family has different dynamics, so it’s useless to speculate as to whether the son is crazy or the mother, or both. Nonetheless, it’s safe to argue that the family situation is not ideal. Violence of this sort should never be tolerated within a family.

A friend of mine points out that when children act like this, somewhere along the line they failed to learn respect from the parents. Parents need to teach respect, and they also have to earn it from their children — it’s a two way street. Parents need to respect each other as well, and sometimes that’s not the case.

Stating the obvious: Do you have children, by any chance? Just wonderin’.

n this particular incident, the mother confronted the son over what she believed to be a specific instance of inconsiderate behavior, after which she left his room and closed the door. The son came out of his room and directed a stream of profanity-laced invective at the mother, who attempted several times to withdraw from the confrontation. When the son continued his verbal abuse,

Stating the obvious, I don’t think you were accurate when you said this: “So you think the appropriate response to a teenager who swears at you is to punch him in the face and hit him with your shoe?” It’s not like he said “damn” and she bloodied his nose.

There are circumstances under which running your mouth can get you into a lot of trouble. Apparently he’s reached the age of 15 without getting control of himself, and that’s a problem, but if he learns from this that there is a time and a place to zip it, his mother may have saved his life.

Theus, I’m sorry you had to endure that. Presumably you didn’t go after your mother when she was trying to walk away, and verbally abuse her until she slapped you.

I do think this mother is very much at fault. Perhaps not at the moment of this incident but for all the years leading up to it.

So you think the appropriate response to a teenager who swears at you is to punch him in the face and hit him with your shoe? How old are you?

Considering the mentality of many of the people on this site, it’s a good thing there wasn’t a gun in the house. I’m sure there would have been more than a few who would have excused her using deadly force. After all, she brought him into this world, she should be able to take him out.

If the facts of this case are as they appear, it was an absurd overreaction by the authorities. However there may be another side to it.

Unfortunately, the zealot approach (any hitting of any kind is child abuse) detracts from situations where there truly is abuse and kids truly need protecting by cheapening the definition of “child abuse.”

Last time I checked (and someone might know a lot more about this than I do), a lot of abusive boyfriends and husbands grew up in houses in which it was seen as acceptable to hit women. If men don’t grow up by seeing their mother and sisters treated well, they are much, much more likely to be abusers.

So what is this guy going to take from all this? If women fight back, you can drag them through the court system and try to take their children away from them? My heart goes out to whatever girl may cross his path.