Parent power[less].

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Sorry, but three things:

1) He slapped on her across the face. This is clearly not acceptable.

2) His daughter felt it necessary to call the police, she deserves the same level of protection as every other person in the country.

3) He accepted a police caution. If he truly wanted to defend what he did, why didn't he take it to court?

Given that the man is clearly a responsible parent who was concerned that his daughter was going off the rails. She had been terrorising a neighbour. They had had numerous arguments previously. The slap was given to shock her and he does not approve of slapping but for exceptional circumstances.

If the child is not prepared to accept the authority of her father at 13, she is now making up her own mind about what is right and wrong - like many other teenagers that we read about in the newspapers.

What's so bad about a slap? It does no permanent damage and may well have served to keep the daughters behaviour in check had the authorities not acted against him, this is now in the lap of the gods.

Hope you feel the same if she goes on to commit a serious violent offence in the near future.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
1) He slapped on her across the face. This is clearly not acceptable.

Why?
Would it have been OK if she slapped her thigh?
The back of her hand?
Belted her?
Shouted very loudly?

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
2) His daughter felt it necessary to call the police, she deserves the same level of protection as every other person in the country.

I agree to a point. The police should come out to any call out but once they determined she was in no danger from him, then why should they give him a caution?

A caution for what, anyway?
Common assault, I assume.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
3) He accepted a police caution. If he truly wanted to defend what he did, why didn't he take it to court?

Tiredness, ease of accepting a caution, pressure from the police who were perhaps unsure if they could achieve a conviction?

In actuality, how likely is it that he could have defended against an allegation of common assault that he freely admits occurred?
The courts would probably impose something more severe than a caution.

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
She had been terrorising a neighbour. They had had numerous arguments previously. The slap was given to shock her and he does not approve of slapping but for exceptional circumstances.

This society really needs to work out what's acceptable, and do it fast. If he doesn't approve of slapping, then why is it OK for exceptional circumstances?
Is physical violence from a role model likely to be a successful deterrent?

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
If the child is not prepared to accept the authority of her father at 13, she is now making up her own mind about what is right and wrong - like many other teenagers that we read about in the newspapers.

Is that necessarily so bad?
Questioning authority is natural especially in teenage years. Furthermore, does her father actually have any authority?

A parent has legal responsibilities for their child and thus they should have rights too. This is where the authority should derive, not from a concept of ownership. A child has no choice but to suffer a parents authority. They can accept adult responsibilities and act like an adult but they have no adult rights and cannot escape an immediate higher authority, even if they are willing to. At some point, however, someone who is still legally a child becomes an adult and it's not on their 16th, 18th or 21st birthday, and never has been.

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
What's so bad about a slap? It does no permanent damage and may well have served to keep the daughters behaviour in check...

Personally, I agree with you. The father has been treated badly in this and any authority he has is now undermined.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
Given that the man is clearly a responsible parent who was concerned that his daughter was going off the rails. She had been terrorising a neighbour. They had had numerous arguments previously. The slap was given to shock her and he does not approve of slapping but for exceptional circumstances.

If the child is not prepared to accept the authority of her father at 13, she is now making up her own mind about what is right and wrong - like many other teenagers that we read about in the newspapers.

What's so bad about a slap? It does no permanent damage and may well have served to keep the daughters behaviour in check had the authorities not acted against him, this is now in the lap of the gods.

Hope you feel the same if she goes on to commit a serious violent offence in the near future.

This i can agree with M3.

I was smacked for being rude to my parents when i was young, did i call the police no! i learned from it.

Kids today have too many ways to get away with things and also have left wings lawyers to turn the facts againist the parents if they have done nothing wrong in the first place.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Why?
Would it have been OK if she slapped her thigh?
The back of her hand?
Belted her?
Shouted very loudly?

Slapping the legs/bum of a child is generally accepted as chastisement. To my knowledge, hitting a child in the face is not.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
I agree to a point. The police should come out to any call out but once they determined she was in no danger from him, then why should they give him a caution?

And how are they going to determine that? The Police Officer does not know the history or the circumstances - it's a case of he says/she says. She may also lie/change/retract her story under threat of further violence from her dad (this often happens in Domestic Violence cases, as any PC will tell you).

As such, best practice dictates that the issue is sorted down at the police station (where the threat of violence has been removed). To do otherwise is risking the welfare of the victim.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
A caution for what, anyway?
Common assault, I assume.

Assault and battery I expect.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Tiredness, ease of accepting a caution, pressure from the police who were perhaps unsure if they could achieve a conviction?

As I understand it, the police should only issue (I say issue, but in reality the defendant must also accept a police caution - thus admitting guilt) caution when they also have sufficient evidence to bring the case to court if necessary (just as local authority enforcement departments will only issue formal warnings if they're also prepared to take the case to court).

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
In actuality, how likely is it that he could have defended against an allegation of common assault that he freely admits occurred?

It's for the jury to decide if an offence has been committed. This goes beyond merely whether the law has technically been broken. The defendant could have claimed reasonable chastisement - thought I doubt the jury would have agreed.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
The courts would probably impose something more severe than a caution.

If a jury of his peers decide he committed a crime, then sorry, but he deserves the punishment the court hands down!

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Slapping the legs/bum of a child is generally accepted as chastisement. To my knowledge, hitting a child in the face is not.

Generally accepted is very subjective. Personally I take a dim view of any form of hitting.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
And how are they going to determine that? The Police Officer does not know the history or the circumstances - it's a case of he says/she says. She may also lie/change/retract her story under threat of further violence from her dad (this often happens in Domestic Violence cases, as any PC will tell you).

Yes, that's true. However surely trained professionals will be able to tell the difference. Discretionary powers.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
As such, best practice dictates that the issue is sorted down at the police station (where the threat of violence has been removed). To do otherwise is risking the welfare of the victim.

That's fine.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
As I understand it, the police should only issue (I say issue, but in reality the defendant must also accept a police caution - thus admitting guilt) caution when they also have sufficient evidence to bring the case to court if necessary (just as local authority enforcement departments will only issue formal warnings if they're also prepared to take the case to court).

He's clearly happy to admit it took place. They decided to issue a caution and the defendant accepted it because the offense did take place. But should a caution have been issued for an example of parental discipline?

Whilst the girl didn't consider it discipline, the father did and must surely have said so to the police. If the police agreed with the girl that is was abuse & they considered it serious enough to do something about it, shouldn't they have declined to issue a caution and taken him to court instead?

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
It's for the jury to decide if an offence has been committed. This goes beyond merely whether the law has technically been broken. The defendant could have claimed reasonable chastisement - thought I doubt the jury would have agreed.

Sure. It would have been better if this had gone to court.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
If a jury of his peers decide he committed a crime, then sorry, but he deserves the punishment the court hands down!

Of course, but it never went to court. This is an example of police (in)action in a situation that can be read two ways: discipline or abuse.

[Rep]

But have we ascertained the precise force of the slap?

Surely that must have some relevance?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
But have we ascertained the precise force of the slap?

Surely that must have some relevance?

It needed to be enough to do the job - and I would guess, seeing the father, he would know what that was.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Generally accepted is very subjective. Personally I take a dim view of any form of hitting.

Yes, I agree that it's highly subjective - I happen to believe that parents should be able to smack their children, but the face is a step too far IMO (as is using an implement - be it stick/slipper/belt).

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Yes, that's true. However surely trained professionals will be able to tell the difference. Discretionary powers.

Picture the scene - you arrive at an address. Girl says she's suffered assault and battery, father claims reasonable chastisement. Girl is adamant that she's been assaulted and is willing to give a statement to this end. Are you really going to say "No, sorry"? (I'm not claiming this is how things progressed, but it seems logical).

At that point I'd argue the only appropriate response is to put a file together with a view to taking it to court and letting the court decide.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
He's clearly happy to admit it took place. They decided to issue a caution and the defendant accepted it because the offense did take place. But should a caution have been issued for an example of parental discipline?

A caution wasn't issued, a caution was accepted. It would have been explained to him what this meant. He has in effect, admitted he is guilty.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Whilst the girl didn't consider it discipline, the father did and must surely have said so to the police. If the police agreed with the girl that is was abuse & they considered it serious enough to do something about it, shouldn't they have declined to issue a caution and taken him to court instead?

Ultimately it's up to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute, but again I stress that police cautions aren't imposed, but rather accepted. This bloke had every right to go to court, but didn't. He has accepted guilt.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee:
Of course, but it never went to court. This is an example of police (in)action in a situation that can be read two ways: discipline or abuse.

Again, it's not the fault of the police, but rather the bloke. He didn't have to accept a caution, but did. Bigger fool him if this isn't the outcome he wanted.

[Rep]