California Spanking Ban

[PrincessFiona]

See...but a law like this changes nothing. Like someone here pointed out...no one is hopefully going to be installing cameras in everyone's homes (though you never know at the way things are going.)

Ultimately, I think laws like this end up doing more harm than good, madeintaiwan. Instead of focusing on parents who are truly beating their children, causing blisters on their bottoms with paddles or are physically causing harm to their children, many other parents who are not guilty of abuse will be targeted. Let's face it...there are so many kids and families in the system already that DCFS can't keep up. More kids in serious danger will slip through the cracks.

Also...it's a slippery slope. First we say no spanking...which, ultimately is a great goal, but in some cases could be warranted.....then...we target Time-Outs (it's the bad mom thing to do here currrently) because of the damage to the self-esteem. Do we start considering the withdrawal of attention (aka time/out or corner time) as emotional abuse because we are withdrawing emotional affection from our children...making them potentially feel badly about themselves?

I feel violently opposed to the idea of crying it out. I think at some point I even got upset enough to point to Dooce's Blog and scream child abuse about that...but ultimately, probably a little crying it out is ok. It's not what I choose, but...done properly it may not be damaging. I'm sure those who use crying out responsibly would not be happy if they were told that it was now considered child abuse....but in my eyes...leaving a small baby alone in the bed crying and crying is...sort of abandonment.

RE: Angie's question of what would be ok from a care provider. I think time-outs are fine...but I question them allowing a child of mine to cry-it-out or be spanked etc. I think that is a decision a parent needs to make...

I think we should be looking more at the source of child abuse and trying to target that...poverty, overhwhelmed parents, etc.

Before Zoe left the NICU, I was required to watch a movie about child abuse and shaken baby syndrome. Also, in order to be discharged, I had to watch a movie about car seats and their proper/improper use. Parents leaving the regular wards didn't have to jump through this hoop...but ultimately, I thought it was a good thing.

Maybe instead of just trying to ban something that they can't enforce, the CA govt needs to focus more on parent education programs, increasing the state's minimum wage, more affordable and adequate childcare for working moms/dads and low cost/free mental health counseling for parents who feel on the brink of causing harm....

Do any of us sleep better at night knowing we've passed a do-nothing law that is unlikely to have any impact?

just some thoughts..

kris

[Rapunzel]

Just as someone stated until you are a parent perhaps you shouldn't spew out parenting advice I believe the same goes for abuse. If you haven't been abused or worked with or seen first hand the DEVASTING effects of abuse I think you should think twice about saying it's bogus or it's not going to help things.

Except I do come from an extended family where real abuse happened. I've seen it's effects first-hand and it has affected my life. And, abuse is SERIOUS stuff. This anti-spanking legislation only belittles the real abuse that so many kids face everyday (including the devastating abuse my father faced as a child that still affects him today).

IT IS BOGUS and it WILL NOT HELP THINGS.

As I stated previously: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. This will do nothing to prevent abuse. It only restrains the law-abiding parents in the state from using a perfectly normal form of parenting.

[Rapunzel]

Ultimately, I think laws like this end up doing more harm than good, madeintaiwan. Instead of focusing on parents who are truly beating their children, causing blisters on their bottoms with paddles or are physically causing harm to their children, many other parents who are not guilty of abuse will be targeted. Let's face it...there are so many kids and families in the system already that DCFS can't keep up. More kids in serious danger will slip through the cracks.
kris

Good point: This legislation would increase the reporting on non-abusive parents (those "bottom-poppers") and take away resources needed for investigating and dealing with REAL abusers. Bogus investigations don't help the kids who really need it - they take away from the help the truly abused children could perhaps receive both in time, energy, and funding.

[Vanquisher]

As this is a very personal issue for me, and a hard one to articulate, I hope that everyone will heed my words for what they are worth as a victim of child abuse.

My parents, whom I love dearly and get along with now, were very strict and hard. They loved me, and I know that, but I questioned it a lot. I was told frequntly that I wasn't wanted and how I was stupid and that they wished they had never had children. I was beaten with belts, spoons, hands, and shoes. Usually across my buttocks, but it quite often got my back or my legs. My hair was pulled, and I was slapped across the face. My parents fully believed they were disciplining me and utilizing spanking. It was violent, and I often lived in fear. There were highs in my house too, to be sure, but the lows were low.

There was one time when my parents had their house on the market to sell it. I was 10 years old. My room wasn't clean, and my dad went "Berzerk." Literally, when he got like that, that's what he would call himself, and he was. He beat me with a plastic recorder (one of those instruments they give you in elementary school). I had welts and bruises on my legs and back, and I couldn't walk afterward from the pain. This all because a 10 year old girl had a messy room.

When I was 13, I had my first boyfriend, and it felt wonderful to rebel against my parents in this way. I did not trust them because of their violence toward me, and I times I truly did hate them, not in a way that most kids say they hate their parents, I think. I would have run away, but I was a smart girl, and I knew that I could not make it on my own very well. At least I had food most of the time. Anyway, this boyfriend was hated by my parents. He was black, and my parents were racists. It was the ultimate victory and solice for me to be with this boy who told me I was beautiful and wonderful and that he loved me.

Then, one day, he raped me. He then sent me a letter about using condoms so that I didn't get pregnant, making it sound as if we were having consensual sex. He told everyone in the school that I had slept with him. My parents found the letter in my room, my private horrible pain, and they accused me of being a slut and a horrible person, and told me they were going to send me away to a place for bad girls.

I couldn't trust them. They didn't know me, and they thought I was a liar and a slut. Truly, I was just a 13 year old girl in a lot of pain who did not know love.

And, so I looked for love. A 13 year old girl doesn't know how to look for love, but I found a lot of boys who were willing to tell me they loved me as long as I was sleeping with them.

When I had my first baby I went into a deep, horrible depression. I finally started dealing with all the things from my childhood. I wondered how anyone could treat a child the way I was treated and often times worse, and I worried about my own ability to be a mother.

I vowed never to raise a hand to my child, ever. And, I never have, and I never, ever will.

I agree that it is a thin line between popping a child on the butt and abuse. How hard is hard enough so that they "get the message" versus hurting them and abusing them. Furthermore, when are they old enough to be spanked, or too old not too. There is too much of a gray area. Therefore, spanking should be considered child abuse, IMO, in ALL instances, and should not be tolerated. I am sorry that people feel that it is their right to spank their children. I fell I have a right to say that it is not all right. Not under any circumstances. I would have no problem with people going after parents who "pop" their children. Just don't do it. It isn't right.

I urge those of you who use this technique to take a step back and think of other things you can do that ARE effective without sending your children messages of violence and intimidation. Futhermore...

From ChildAdvocate.org

Argument #1: "It didn't do ME any harm!"
Answer: Often people who declare this typical argument do so very defensively. They may feel they must defend the actions of their caretakers. To do otherwise is to admit that as children, they never deserved to have pain inflicted upon them. They must also admit to the feelings of fear, anger and mistrust that may have resulted from being hit by loved ones who were supposed to keep them safe from harm. Often, people who use this argument use or have used corporal punishment on their own children, thus defending their actions to minimize guilt. However, their actions reveal that corporal punishment DID do them harm: It perpetuated the cycle of violence that they now endorse or inflict upon children.

Argument #2: "Most people who were corporally punished as kids turned out to live productive lives!" (Or, "I hit MY kids and THEY turned out fine!")
Answer: The human spirit is amazingly resilient. Many people who have experienced suffering as children are able to live productive lives. However, these people may harbor self-destructive tendencies, and interpersonal difficulties in that aren‘t apparent to onlookers. Adults who were mistreated in childhood are often insecure, mistrusting, defensive, authoritarian, passive, withdrawn, apathetic, in denial or quick to sarcasm. Those who transcend childhood suffering are often highly resilient people who have sought to process and understand how their childhood history currently impacts their lives. Due to the vast differences in each individual’s biological makeup, temperament, cognitive endurance, environment, supportive system and resources, not every person possesses an equal level of resiliency. Some people are able to flourish and achieve success in spite of childhood pain; while other people become overwhelmed by rage and anxiety and act destructively against others or towards themselves. We cannot know ahead of time how corporal punishment will adversely affect a child, or how any adverse affects will manifest. To risk the outcome of an angry, aggressive, withdrawn or insecure person is too high a risk to take even once.

Argument #3: "I HAVE to use corporal punishment, nothing else works!" (or "Time Outs don’t work!")
Answer: True discipline is about developing a trusting, mutually respectful relationship between child and caretaker. To inflict pain on a child as a means of control is a lazy way out of the work it takes to help a child understand and internalize proper behavior. If you have used corporal punishment on your child, it will take time and effort for new methods to work. Years of negative patterns can't be erased overnight with a simple solution. Nagging, yelling, threatening, controlling and punishing must stop before an effective relationship can be built and your child can trust you and understand the consequences of his/her behavior. People who use the argument "I’ve tried everything and nothing else works" often reveal that they haphazardly tried several techniques learned in various books, without actually committing to or following through consistently with one approach. The result is an unorganized set of chaotic rules or consequences that change often and confuse the child... and make the adult appear out of control. People dissatisfied with their lack of success with "time outs" tend to use "time out" in a punitive manner. These people may expect a tantruming child to comply with sitting in a designated chair for a set amount of minutes. This punitive method of "time out" generates powers struggles rather than compliance. A more effective method is to direct the child to quiet room in which to calm down, then allowing the child to rejoin you when he or she expresses readiness. There need be no time limit or nagging. The number of brief time outs can be increased until the child understands that he or she must regain control of him/herself. As an adult, how do you deal with adults who you can't seem to gain cooperation from? Do you hit your boss, employee, spouse or best friend when it appears that "nothing else works"?

Argument #4: "I only use corporal punishment as a last resort."
Answer: This reasoning teaches children that it is acceptable to use violence as a last resort to getting their way or to solving a difficult problem. This teaches that violence is the end result to frustrating situations that seem to have no other solution. Wars are fought on this principle. This argument is no more acceptable than an angry spouse saying that they "only" hit their mate "as a last resort" to a problem.

Argument #5: "There's a difference between child abuse and a little spanking!"
Answer: Violent acts occur on a continuum. Some are extreme, such as acts of torture or murder, others are less extreme such as a shove or a slap. Regardless of where they fall on the continuum, they are all acts of violence. Before the late 1960's, a husband's slap of his wife was not regarded as an act of abuse. Today, that same act is unquestionably viewed as abusive (society still has a long way to go before wives are equally regarded as batterers for assaulting their husbands). The "spanking" of children is viewed in the same light today as wife hitting was viewed before the 1960's: NOT abusive by legal standards. Additionally, if an employer "spanked" the buttocks of an employee, it would be grounds for sexual assault. Is there really a difference between child abuse and "a little spanking", or is society too uncomfortable with the idea of protecting children's right to be free from assault in the way that adults are currently protected?

Argument #6: "Corporal Punishment is Effective."
Answer: Corporal punishment may produce immediate results, but it makes discipline more difficult for caretakers in the long term. Corporal punishment teaches children to be sneaky- to follow your orders when only when you are around. It teaches children to become liars- to lie about misbehavior to avoid being hit, spanked, slapped or punished in some other degrading manner. Most importantly, corporal punishment slings arrows into the parent-child relationship, and communicates disrespect. It can destroy a child’s sense of trust and security in the relationship and confuses the definition of love. Moreover, corporal punishment has consistently been found to lead to anger, rage, aggressive behavior, revenge seeking, nightmares, disrespect for authority, higher stakes for depression, post traumatic stress, anxiety, substance use, sadomasochistic sexual fetishes, child abuse, spousal abuse, delinquency and of course... more corporal punishment (Straus, 1994). A single act of corporal punishment may be effective at immediately frightening a child into submission. However, caretakers who value their children will insist on positive, non-violent ways to discipline children.

Argument #7: "The Reason Kids Are So Bad These Days Is Because of a Lack of Corporal Punishment!"
Answer: Contrary to this argument, Straus (1994) and Gershoff (2002) report that over 90% of parents still report using corporal punishment on their children. Despite increased adult cynicism towards young people, incidents of youth crime have actually dropped since the early 1990’s. Isolated violent incidents committed by severely disturbed children are often inflated by the media to give the impression that young people are out of control. With regards to the wave of school shootings of recent years, all but one of these incidents occurred in school systems which use corporal punishment. In fact, in one school shooting case, the child targeted and shot the school teacher who had paddled him the day before. Corporal punishment is most strongly practiced in the southern and southwestern areas of the United States. These states actually have the highest rates of student violence, murder and incarceration in the country! Unfortunately, people who use argument #7 assume that discipline is synonymous with corporal punishment. If they observe the negative behaviors of children with permissive or neglectful parents, they may wrongly conclude that the child needs corporal punishment. In fact, children who are physically punished have been consistently found to have higher rates of aggression, juvenile delinquency and disrespect for authority- the very behaviors people want to prevent in children! Instead, children who have strong, loving role models, receive consistent guidance, firm limits, opportunities for democratic communication, logical consequences and positive, non-punitive discipline are more likely to manifest self discipline, critical thinking skills, personal accountability, good social skills and respect and concern for others. A child who is hit, smacked, spanked, paddled and hurt learns to be do the same.

Argument #8: "Corporal punishment teaches children to be obedient !"
Answer: In the early 1900’s, obedience was an important virtue. It was important for the children of hard-working laborers to be primed for lives of obedient servitude in mills and factories. Corporal punishment kept children in line, stifling critical thinking skills, negotiation, democratic communication with elders, questioning authority, bold individualistic deviations from the norm and opportunities to learn naturally from mistakes. In modern times, all of the qualities looked upon as dangerous in the early 1900’s are all qualities now necessary and vital in order to succeed in today’s innovative and competitive society. Enforcing blind obedience does not promote these skills. In order for children to grow into adults able to be successful in the modern world, they require discipline that promotes critical thinking, logical consequences, good communication and self discipline.

Argument #9: "What if they run out in the street or try to touch a hot stove? They need to be hit to learn that it is a dangerous situation!"
Answer: If you believe that hitting your child for running out into the street or reaching for a hot stove is effective, would you leave them alone near the street or stove once you’ve hit them? Being hit is in no way teaches anything about the dangers of the street or the stove, nor will it prevent them from exploring dangerous situations in the future. Instead, hitting children teaches them that YOU are dangerous and can inflict pain upon them. Children should not be hurt or punished for their lack of experience about the world, and for their developmental immaturity. It is the caretaker’s responsibility to remove opportunities for a child to encounter dangerous situations in their environment through proper monitoring and "child-proofing" efforts. Children can be taught gradually to exercise caution around dangerous situations, through your example, and constant reminders. Until they comprehend the dangers, they must be supervised, not hit.

Argument #10: "The Bible admonishes us to use 'the rod' on children!"
Answer: Children are assaulted on a daily basis in the name of religious devotion due to a few Biblical scriptures that have been taken out of context. Proverbs 23:13,14 is a commonly cited scripture for the support of corporal punishment. From a historical perspective, King Solomon, author of the book of Proverbs, was recorded as a brutal king who was thirsty for violence and who later opposed the law of God. His sons, who no doubt received corporal punishment, were rebellious, disrespectful and very aggressive. Given King Solomon's lack of family success, is he a good spiritual role model for parenting? In contrast, Jesus Christ was by far the Bible's most peaceful figure. There is no scripture in the New Testament in which Jesus advocates for, admonishes or recommends the use of corporal punishment on children. In stark contrast, he stated that people should treat others the way they wish to be treated. That is hardly a support for violence. Citing isolated Biblical scriptures is not an acceptable argument for using corporal punishment on children. Using the same technique of taking ancient, isolated scriptures out of context, one could also justify polygamy, racism, slavery, banishing menstruating women from public and stoning to death of those who have sexual relations outside of marriage. Additionally, there is no evidence that the "rod" of the Bible was anything other than a symbolic metaphor for a shepherd's staff, which was used to lead or guide, not hit, sheep. To take a few isolated scriptures from the Old testament out of context to excuse assaulting children is a gross contradiction of Jesus' message of love, tenderness and peace.

Heidi -

I'm sorry for the hardships you suffered, and the others that shared them as well.

As I've posted before, I am an occasional spanker - when the situation merits it in MY opinion as their parent. My rule for spanking is that it is MY hand on their bottom. No implements - if I felt the need to spank harder than MY hand could tolerate, that would be seriously inappropriate. There are times where the only thing that snaps these guys back into reality or wakes them to the reality of their inappropriate behavior is a spank on their bottom. I do not spank repeatedly, I do not beat, I do not use implements, I do not insult, I do not berate, I do not belittle.

I think there are many ways to parent and many ways to do it right. And MANY ways to screw it up. My guess is that many people who proclaim "I don't hit my child" wouldn't flinch at the idea of telling their child to shutup, or telling their child that they are stupid. I'm not saying that anyone here does that -- I'm simply pointing out another behavior that I think this troubling but that often goes by w/o comment.
I think that a law such as this is worthless. People who truly beat their children don't do it in public, or in front of law enforcement - they won't be caught by putting a "no spank" law on the books.

[Sheherezade]

I'm feeling a little ignored here. This seems to have turned in to a forum about whether it is OK for each of us to spank or if we are abusers. I don't think that's a very productive conversation. I'm sorry that some of you have been abused - and I can never know that horror. I don't think that all people that swat their kids are monsters. I do think that the definition of spanking means different things to different people and that it is used as a legal defense in child abuse cases. That's a loophole that should be closed.

Can anyone address the issue of "spanking" as a defense in child abuse allegations? Of course, people don't beat their children in the light of day. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to find that people that do beat their children have also "beat the rap" in court by claiming it fell under the title of spanking. If abuse is reported by a pediatrician or ER worker -- or neighbor - and it gets investigated, how do the courts evaluate something like beating a kid's bottom with a paddle - or a switch? Is that OK?

I still think a clear definition on what is appropriate "spanking" may be a good idea. Use of paddles and switches not allowed? Doe that exist? If not, maybe this measure will end up defining it more clearly once it has been through the ringer in government.

As for the idea that laws are unnecessary because criminals don't obey them anyway.....should we even bother with laws at all?

I'm not ignoring you, Angie. I just haven't had time to respond. I agree with most of what you have said.

As written, I think that law sounds like it could be difficult to enforce or unevenly applied (good tool for revenge, perhaps). A clearer definition of abuse makes more sense.

[Sheherezade]

Thanks, Nellie. I thought I was on mute.

[Sheherezade]

I just don't see the government doing this to catch bad parents. Maybe I'm not in that climate. I think the government gives a whole 'lotta latitude in parenting. I've been more impressed by the number of cases when government hasn't stepped in than I have by the cases in which government has. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough.

I see the anti-spanking ban as an extension on the child abuse laws/domestic violence laws - and as a way to close a loophole that has been used by abusers. Again, I can understand the need to re-word the measure to define acceptable corporal punishment and unacceptable corporal punishment. I don't see a problem with discussing it. I don't see a problem with defining limits on physical actions against children by parents. So, I see this as the government setting limits. Parenting is all about limits, right?

[madeintaiwan]

As I stated previously: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. This will do nothing to prevent abuse.

So do you feel that criminals can't change? Once a criminal always a criminal. If criminals don't obey the law why would education and resources help them. Maybe fining them and throwing them in jail is the best solution. I don't know if this law would prevent abuse. But who knows it just might. I don't abuse my kids so why do I care if such a law exists. I in no way feel that having such a law would infringe on my freedom to parent my child the way I chose. The process of reporting and investigating claims of abuse and neglect just don't work that way. They are not going to waste time on such minor cases despite what the new law states. It takes beating after beating, report after report, and sometimes almost killing your kid for an investigation to take place. They don't have the time or resources. Nothing would change except that maybe now they can fine those chronically abusive parents. And maybe taking a hit to their pocket books might make them think twice or even stop. If nothing is going to change for us, why do you care so much? That is what really baffles me. And the law pertains to children under 4. Really, you need to spank a 4 year old,3 year old ,2 year old, 1 year or newborn? If a child doesn't have the true capacity to control their actions and emotions or understand consequence.. I don't get it. They aren't old enough to fully understand, "Mommy's sorry she spanked you but you didn't listen to me or take your time out so I had to spank you bc nothing else worked." If you have to spank a child under 4, it is clearly because you are frustrated and serves no "learning" purpose to the child.

[PrincessFiona]

If you have to spank a child under 4, it is clearly because you are frustrated and serves no "learning" purpose to the child.

I disagree. I have *spanked* Aidan on 1 occasion only. He is 3 and consistently will run away from and laugh. He thinks that being chased is funny. I am very much an attachment parenting mom...In my wildest dreams I would never spank a baby. I always get down on my kid's level and talk to them, explain consequences, and listen to what they may have to say. Honestly, Aidan is too little to "get it" that running away in a shopping mall, on the street or when we walk in the neighborhood could be harmful. Usually, I try and avoid these issues altogether by putting him in a buggy.

On one occasion when we were at the mall, we were walking to the van hand-in-hand and I had Zoe in the buggy. He thought it was funny to run away from me and when I said (in my firm Mommy voice) "Aidan, NO!" and moved towards him as quickly as possible with the buggy, he pretty much squealed with delight and nearly ran right into an oncoming car. I scooped him up and swatted him 1 time firmly on the bottom. It was not enough to hurt my hand, cause welts, redness, scarring or injury of any sort. It did surprise him. He cried...not in pain, but because he was so shocked.

Quite frankly, if someone had accused me of child abuse, I would have told them to kiss my butt.

Aidan has never darted out away from me again....I did not injure him, hurt him, shame him, tell him he was bad, abuse him or otherwise do something to compromise him. However, if he had been hit by the car, I have no doubt someone would have jumped out and accused me of child neglect, not being able to control my perfectly normal 3 year old or something else.

I think that there are situations where it is justified. That being said, I have 5 children and I rarely ever have spanked....

Parenting isn't for the faint of heart...I believe that most parents really are doing the best that they can. Many kids today have no respect for authority, teachers or parents and I think this is due in part to the "no time outs", no discipline parenting going on.

kris

[PrincessFiona]

Angie,

I think you're right that maybe the answer is to better define what abuse is. In regards to questions about what a child care provider is allowed to do and applying the same standard to parents....

I wouldn't want my childcare provider bathing my kids...but I do it....I wouldn't want them driving my kids in their vehicle..but I do it. I also don't want them really to discipline my children...but I will. Sure...they can put the child in time-out...but I draw the line at having a chat with them about their behavior.

I'm also violently opposed to the fact that our schools think it is their right to teach sex ed to my 5th grader.....but...I am comfortable taking on that task because they are my children.

kris

"So do you feel that criminals can't change? Once a criminal always a criminal."

I don't think anyone was saying criminals can't change, but that this law will not cause a wide spread change of mind in a person who is abusing their child physically. Case in point: where I live I'm constantly passing beat up cars with children 1. not in a car seat 2. in an over crowed car and 3. sometimes left completely alone in a parking lot - it makes me ill. I actually reported a family holding an infant in the front of their van two Christmas's ago that was driving SO recklessly and fast on the highway, I was so freaked out for that baby. There are car seat laws, so why do I constantly see people endangering their children in broad day light, not in the privacy of their own home, when their are laws already in place. Because laws don't = change of actions. It just = getting caught, maybe, for the person who doesn't really care about the law. Obviously a person who is battering their child via spanking, already doesn't care about the obvious law in place already.

I think the real question here is will this change anything? You say

"They are not going to waste time on such minor cases despite what the new law states. It takes beating after beating, report after report, and sometimes almost killing your kid for an investigation to take place. They don't have the time or resources."

This is SO true. And it's differant state to state what that line is. So why would outlawing spanking, change this at all, or be helpful to pass? Once again for a parent to get truely hauled in, and the tried in court it would then be a case of obvious abuse, and physically batterment to the child. So in this point it just in some way points to the whole aurgument.

"Really, you need to spank a 4 year old,3 year old ,2 year old, 1 year or newborn?"

Well of course not a 1 year old or a newborn, BUT when DS was 2, in his fits of extreme tantrums that would last HOURS long, where he would phycially hurt himself - yeah I spanked him when it permited. Like when he kept banging his head against our back glass window, which already had a crack in it, after constantly redirecting, moving, time outs (which only worked at the time if I physically restrained him between my legs, arms wrapped arround him) and yet he'd go back and do it again. Honestly I think this one of those things that unless you have a child that is strongheaded to the core, you may think it's obvious to do xwz and it will work in every situation. For instance sleeping. Your kid will not to the Babywise method, and every other method under the sun, then you find one that works for you - would you want the gov to tell you which you can ideas you can pool from and which you can't? I don't ever think I abused my son, and we rarely spank. Honestly I can't remember the last time I did, but for sure I don't think it should be outlawed.

Remember abuse comes in many forms, most are never reported, are habitually denyed by the victim. It's in these cases that a clearer definition of abuse and tightening loopholes to issues that the court already deals with, will actually make a difference, is where the gov should be speniding their time.

Also having an oppinion another states law (or potential law) IS important because it could eventually impact your own state. So having an oppinion is good for the community IMO because it makes you a more informed citizen, regardless of the oppinion.

Just my take.

Also btw for those for the law, what about NYC and the ban against transfats? Was that good for the community, or is banning the doughnut to big brother too? It's obvious what those fats do to those who abuse them, but for those who don't, do you want the choice taken away?

"Maybe fining them and throwing them in jail is the best solution."

But at what cost? There has to be adequate resources for this, and there are not. To throw in a parent who is legitmately abusing their child - which would be obvious by the physically batterment, would be helpful, yet this is already in the laws. Yet once again a better definition could help impliment this. But to throw in a parent who's friend, grandparent or whatnot saw them spanking and didn't like it, yet no abuse was made, what good would this do?

Also another thought. What will this do the foster parent deficite in our nation? If these parents are thrown in jail, who will take care of the child without any care? We already don't have enough places to put children in good foster families, what then? You have to be careful what you legislate, because once again you have to have the resources to follow through.