“This ruling really concerns me because of what it may do to the ability of (child welfare) workers to do their investigations,” said Rachel Tobin-Smith, executive director of SCAN Inc., which works to prevent child abuse and neglect. “My concern is we are at a point when our DCS system is doing the best job it has in years of really responding to the reports of abuse and neglect. I think this is a step backwards.”
Parents have the right to discipline and should do so, Tobin-Smith said, but noted, “Discipline and punishment are two different things. When you realize this kid had bruises from a belt or a cord, then you know this parent has crossed the line.
“One of the hallmarks we've always said of child abuse (is) the markings, the bruises or cuts. … (If) it left marks, it always meant there had been lack of parental constraint and it was abuse.
“Now that just got grayer with the Supreme Court. … My concern is that the public will be afraid to report abuse. If I were a caseworker, it would surely make me second-guess when doing an investigation,” Tobin-Smith said.
The lower court judge in the Willis case said in his ruling, “This is a tough area of the law … because you know that a person's intent was not to do the wrong thing. … I don't have a good answer for you as to where to draw the line.”
What the state court said
The Supreme Court judges said: “The (Indiana) Code does not explicitly demand that the use of force be reasonable. Second, under the Code, so long as a parent acts for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare (including the specific purpose of preventing or punishing misconduct), the parent is privileged in using force, unless the force creates a substantial risk of death or excessive injuries.”
Yet the justices concurred with the Appellate Court that there is “precious little Indiana case law providing guidance as to what constitutes proper and reasonable parental discipline of children, and there are no bright-line rules.”
Michelle Savieo, director of the Allen County Office of Department of Child Services, said the Supreme Court's ruling in the Willis case will not change the way caseworkers investigate allegations or how they define evidence of abuse or neglect.
“We continue to look at the same standards as we always looked at in investigation, Savieo said. “We've always gone with the belief that if the parent leaves bruises on a child, then they've crossed the line and that is child abuse.”
Child Protective Services' role, she points out, is to investigate allegations. It is a prosecutor's responsibility to decide whether enough evidence exists beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a criminal charge.
Neither does the ruling change state law on reporting abuse, Savieo said.
“The law is very clear in Indiana that if you have suspicion that a child has been abused or neglected, you are a mandated reporter,” she said.
Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards said the Willis case illustrates the importance of each case being evaluated individually and that what is reasonable discipline of an 11-year-old is not reasonable for a 2-year-old.
“We're supposed to prove that the force was unreasonable,” Richards said.
The justices said the physical and mental condition of the child must be factored into what is “reasonable force” and “serious harm,” as should the nature of the child's offense and motive.
“One of the greatest challenges in Indiana is defining serious harm,” said Sharon Pierce, president and CEO of Prevent Child Abuse Indiana and The Villages in Indianapolis, which provides foster care, adoption and family services.
Said Richards, “If the child in this case would have said he was in severe pain or it would have required medical attention,” the ruling might have come down differently.
The boy said the whipping hurt “for a minute,” according to court documents, and no medical care was needed.
The justices said, “there is nothing in the record concerning (J.J's) physical or mental condition,” a point Pierce cites when she questions how they could have made a ruling without such evidence. “The boy may have been 11 in age, but is he emotionally 8 or 9?” she asked.
The bigger picture in this is, “How can we work to prevent getting to this point?” Pierce said. “How do we as caring communities help parents have a tool box, if you will, to have strategies, to set limits? As parents our role is to teach and not to threaten.”
It's never been against the law for parents to discipline their children, even spank them, Richards said. “But you're still not supposed to injure your child when you discipline them.”
♦To get help for yourself or someone who is struggling with everyday demands of parenting, call the Network For Safe Families at 1-800-752-7116.
♦To report abuse or neglect, call 1-800-CHILDREN (1-800-244-5373), or the Department of Child Services at 1-800-800-5556.
Indiana's 2007 child abuse and neglect deaths
♦17 - Child fatalities in Indiana due to abuse.
♦19 - Child fatalities in Indiana due to neglect.
♦9 - Child fatalities occurring in families that had at least one prior Child Protective Services substantiated investigation.
♦5 - Child abuse deaths due to skull fracture.
♦4 - Child abuse deaths due to shaken baby syndrome.
♦3 - Child medical neglect deaths (one in lack of oxygen for respirator-dependent child, one from cardiac arrest due to lack of seizure mediation and one massive infection).
♦2 - Child neglect deaths due to poisoning (one alcohol and one methadone).
♦1 - Child abuse death due to methadone.
♦2 - Child deaths from gunshot wounds (one abuse and one neglect).
Source: Indiana Department of Child Services Child Fatality Report for state fiscal year 2007
Subject: 
What the library war in the little city of Lindsay, California means for the entire nation. 
