Last week NFL football player, Adrian Peterson was indicted by a grand jury in Texas on charges of reckless or negligent injury to a child from an alleged incident occurring in June 2013.
Since the story broke, there has been a great deal of debate in the news regarding child abuse and/or child discipline with opinions running the full gamut between support and condemnation.
As a criminal defense attorney, I am intrigued by the attention Peterson’s story is receiving because it offers insights into people’s attitudes and opinions on a very controversial and polarizing topic. Attitudes and opinions that a lawyer would surely need to explore during jury selection when presented with defending a client faced with assault of a child charges.
That said, what is the law in Washington State regarding Physical Discipline of a Child. For example, if a client is faced with a Child Assault charge and the defendant is claiming a discipline defense, the jury would be given the following instructions under WPIC (Washington Pattern Jury Instruction) 17.07:
“It is a defense to a charge of assault that the force used was lawful as defined in this instruction.
The physical discipline of a child is lawful when it is reasonable and moderate, and is inflicted by a [parent] [teacher] [guardian] [person authorized in advance by the child’s parent or guardian to use such force] for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.
You must determine whether the force used, when viewed objectively, was reasonable and moderate.
You may, but are not required to, infer that it is unreasonable to do the following act(s) to correct or restrain a child: [throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child] [striking a child with a closed fist] [shaking a child under age three] [interfering with a child’s breathing] [threatening a child with a deadly weapon] [doing any act that is likely to cause, and that does cause, bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks.] [You shall consider the age, size, and condition of the child, and the location of the injury, when determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate.] This inference is not binding upon you, and it is for you to determine what weight, if any, such inference is to be given.
The [State] [City] [County] bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not lawful. If you find that the [State] [City] [County] has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge].”
BUT see also RCW 9A.16.100 “Use of Force on Children – Policy – Actions Presumed Unreasonable” which places no express limitations on acts of physical discipline that can defined as presumably unreasonable :
“It is the policy of this state to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. However, the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child’s parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.
The following actions are presumed unreasonable when used to correct or restrain a child: (1) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child; (2) striking a child with a closed fist; (3) shaking a child under age three; (4) interfering with a child’s breathing; (5) threatening a child with a deadly weapon; or (6) doing any other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor temporary marks. The age, size, and condition of the child and the location of the injury shall be considered when determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate. This list is illustrative of unreasonable actions and is not intended to be exclusive.”
Of course, there is always the option of putting the child in “time-out”. Or taking a deep breath and counting to ten. Thereby, taking the guess work out of it and not leaving your fate in the hands of your community.
In any event, in light of the news created by the Peterson story, I thought this would be a good opportunity to blog about the laws on this topic locally.
