I would appreciate seeing any plea offer at your earliest opportunity. In this case, time is needed to adequately advise Ms. XXXX.
Based on the facts I have heard, it is said that Ms. XXXX employed a plastic clothing hanger to strike her 9 year old son, ZZZ. I understand that the medical providers consulted to examine ZZZ may be uncertain as to whether
some very limited scratches (or “marks”) were the result of the use of the hanger or were caused by a friend’s dog’s paws. Apparently, ZZZ does not know himself which caused the marks. As you know, YYYY provides a justification defense against a charge involving the otherwise unlawful use of reasonable physical force by a parent applied to their minor child. The statute limits the use of such force to situations where it is “reasonably necessary” to maintain discipline or promote the welfare of the minor. However, every state in our republic recognizes the wisdom of the appropriate use of discipline in the form of corporal punishment. The common element of such allowed disciplinary techniques is the non-accidental infliction of pain and even “physical injury”. As a parent of nine children (now all grown and successful adults), I could probably qualify as a “lay expert” on the subject. Depending on age and the specific misbehavior, sometimes “timeout” is simply ineffective, or worse, laughable. The common theme of the several extensions of YYYY justification is found in the use of the term “reasonable”. This exclusively human capacity to judge what is appropriate, is, I think, the central issue. Since pain and minor injury are allowed, where do we draw the line between allowed corporal punishment and abuse?
Also, substituting one person’s standard, for many (or even one other), must of legal necessity be used sparingly and with respect for the fragile institution of parenthood. Even UUU DHS seems to be a bit “at sea” when addressing the subject. In YYYY “abuse” means “any of the following, except that abuse does not include reasonable discipline unless the discipline results in one of the conditions described in this subsection”. The “rule” then spends several pages on actions that qualify as abuse, such as: “willful infliction of physical pain or injury”, or “verbal abuse” and so on. Of course, the exception has to be applied.
In sum, in this case, presuming Ms. XXXX was not witless or hysterical, her employment of a hanger as either threat or useful instrument cannot itself be criminal in the circumstances. Also, slight, fleeting, or mild pain is surely allowed. Even slight “physical injury” can be tolerated within the justification defense if, as here, the effect is minimal, although visually provable, like a minor bruise.
I apologize if the foregoing seems long and labored, but I intend it to reasonably support my recommendation that dismissal be considered. In my opinion, moms faced with having to deal with immature, willful, violent, and misbehaving sons are at enough of a disadvantage without setting them up for future conflict by enabling the child and providing him with a tool to threaten her.
这是律师发的. 另外DHS今天明确告诉我根本不需要离开家. 他们对我没有任何限制. 我可以回家. 但我还是决定不要回去, 等律师确定好再决定. 不过一切是向好的方面. 另外我老公问过儿子, 他说他没有说过我从preschool就打他. 我现在目前还是多看看养娃的书籍. 欢迎各位推荐一下. |
匿名用户-3AV9Z
2023-6-3 03:07:44
匿名用户-PG7WP
2023-6-6 20:37:12
狗仔卡
交友用户
