Mom's discipline not abuse, Isle judges rule
 |
StoryChat: Comment on this story |
By Ken Kobayashi
Advertiser Courts Writer
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
The Hawai'i Supreme Court issued a major ruling last week on the question: At what point does the use of corporal punishment cross the line to criminal child abuse?
In a 3-2 decision, the high court ruled that a mother was not guilty of child abuse for hitting her 14-year-old daughter with a backpack, a plastic hanger, a small brush and the plastic handle of a tool. The high court reversed a jury's verdict that had convicted the mother.
Chief Justice Ronald Moon and two associate justices said the actions of Ijeva Matavale, the mother, fall under the law that permits parents to use force in disciplining their children.
Two other justices dissented, suggesting the decision will permit any parent to lose control and inflict the same type of harm.
The clash among the justices underscores the point that what is abuse to one person is discipline to another.
"People feel very differently about using force for parental discipline," said Deputy Public Defender Deborah Kim, one of the mother's lawyers on the appeal. "Some people would never hit a child, but for other people, it's necessary."
State law makes it illegal for parents to "physically abuse" their children, but Hawai'i law also allows parents to use force if it's appropriate for the age and size of the child and if it's related to helping the minor, including punishment for misconduct. The force, however, cannot cause serious injury or extreme pain.
In his 44-page opinion, Moon wrote that the ruling does not send any message about future cases because each must be reviewed separately.
"Clearly, there is no bright line that dictates what, under all circumstances, is unreasonable or excessive corporal punishment," Moon wrote.
But in Matavale's case, her use of force "falls within the bounds of parental discipline," he wrote.
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE
Child abuse has been a recurring controversial issue. In a current extreme case, parents Denise and Melvin Wright Jr. are charged with trying to murder their 12-year-old daughter by starving her.
The high court's decision deals with far less egregious circumstances, but it concerns an issue about the use of force that any parent of a rebellious or disobedient child can appreciate.
The differences in opinion on that issue are reflected throughout Matavale's case.
Her first trial ended with a hung jury. The jury in the second trial indicated it was deadlocked before it eventually returned the guilty verdict. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the appeal to the state's highest court resulted in a reversal.
Previous high court and appeals court decisions provide a framework of the boundaries of what parents can do.
Here are several court decisions involving convictions of abusing a household member:
POOR GRADES
In Matavale's case, Moon gave a lengthy background:
The daughter received poor grades, including two F's, but agreed to get tutoring. The daughter, however, skipped tutoring classes and hung out with friends. On the day her report card was due, the daughter — even though she was reminded by the mother to bring it home — said she forgot it at school, but eventually disclosed her grades included four C's, one D and one incomplete.
When the mother demanded to know why the grades hadn't improved, the daughter refused to answer. The mother then grabbed a plastic backpack containing a school folder and jacket and hit the daughter on the left arm as the girl tried to block the blow.
The daughter disclosed she had not been going to tutoring. When the mother demanded to know where she had gone instead, the girl refused to answer, prompting the mother to hit her with a plastic hanger about five times.
When the girl said she had been hanging out with friends, the mother felt deceived, got a small car brush and hit the daughter on the top of the left hand and on the knuckles with a plastic handle of a tool.
"It was wrong, but I did it for a purpose," the mother testified. "I just wanted the best for my daughter."
The daughter was large for her age, 5 feet 4 or 5 and 154 pounds at the trial, which took place about four months after the incident. The mother was larger.
The daughter suffered bruises to her left forearm, but no cuts or more severe injuries, such as fractures.
POLICE INFORMED
Police became involved in the case when a teacher or counselor apparently spoke to the girl when she went back to school. A police officer was called by the school and he met with the girl.
In her dissent, Associate Justice Paula Nakayama wrote the evidence did support the conviction and she would not second-guess the jury's verdict.
Moon wrote that the mother's actions fell under the justified parental discipline law.
"The dissent attempts to portray mother as an out-of-control parent who repeatedly used various implements to discipline daughter for her poor performance in school," he wrote. "However ... the evidence reveals the mother disciplined daughter for her continuously defiant behavior in refusing to answer mother's questions and in lying to her."
The evidence, Moon wrote, was not enough to support the conviction.
Matavale could not be reached for comment, but Kim said her client was pleased with the high court's ruling.
The decision sets aside the conviction and Matavale's sentence of two days in jail and two years of probation.
HAWAI' I SUPREME COURT OPINIONS ON PARENTAL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
"Our opinion today should not in any way be construed as an expression of approval of the parental conduct that precipitated the prosecution of the matter before us.
"Neither should our opinion be viewed as an endorsement, or any kind, of the use by parents of corporal punishment of their children. It is common knowledge that the utility -- not to mention the simple humanity -- of corporal punishment as a parental tool is the subject of considerable controversy within American society.
"Nevertheless, it is equally obvious that the permissibility of corporal punishment reflects a societal judgment that falls well within the parameters of legitimate and constitutional legislative policy-making."
- Chief Justice Ronald Moon, quoting from a previous court decision and applying it to the current case. Moon was joined by Associate Justice Steven Levinson.
"In sum, I share in the plurality's discomfort with condemning the mother for her actions in the present case. Most assuredly, even the most pious of parents are susceptible to the unique aggravation caused by the disrespect, disobedience, or deception of their offspring, capable of triggering an uncharacteristic parental reaction.
"Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with the plurality's decision ..... that the facts presented cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a case of abuse."
- Associate Justice Paula Nakayama, who was joined by Associate Justice Jim Duffy.
"With respect to mother's parental justification defense, the decisions of this court cannot be read to prohibit the use of physical force in disciplining children altogether.
"The use of parent force is permissible under the penal law, for under appropriate circumstances, 'a parent might justifiably believe the use of physical force was the only proper alternative left to the parent to fulfill his obligation under (state law) to control his or her child's conduct.'"
- Associate Justice Simeon Acoba, citing a previous court ruling. He wrote a concurring opinion that the conviction should be reversed.
Reach Ken Kobayashi at kkobayashi@honoluluadvertiser.com.
