new proposed law in California

my2monkeyboys wrote: Anyone else irked about this, as I am?
For those who don't know, a lady in the bay Area of California is proposing a law banning spanking any child under 3-yrs. old.
So, what are your thoughts on this?

stella6979 replied: People have been spanking their kids since the beginning of time and while I may not agree with it, I feel as long as your not abusing your child, it's up to you how you choose to discipline them.

kit_kats_mom replied: I'm fine with it. A child under 3 really doesn't have the capacity to understand why they are being struck. By that I mean, they can't tie their action with the reaction. Time outs and other dicipline work just as well at that age. Of course, I'm not a spanker so

my2monkeyboys replied: Well, to me it's not about whether you are a spanker or not, though. It's about parent's rights. We have child abuse laws in place, although I think they are not dealt with in a timely manner most times. It's not the government's place to say whether a mother can spank her child's bottom or not.
This kind of law would just lead to more and more laws and before it's over we'd have laws telling us we can't let a baby CIO or some other ridiculous thing.
Just too much government IMHO.

Boo&BugsMom replied: I'm afraid if I comment I wont be able to stop. I'll just say I think it's ridiculous and just one more thing that the government is trying to control in which they have zero knowledge about. It seems whenever things like this come about, it's from people who have NO CLUE what they are even talking about. I'm tired of this generation being coddled. I can see if a child was a baby, yes. But any child under 3? Come on! My son most certainly DID know what a spanking was for when he was that young. If I lived there, I'd move. How about making laws stricter for people who BEAT their children instead? That's all I'm going to say.

mom21kid2dogs replied: I've never spanked but I read that and almost ran screaming to the bushes!!! The fact that something like that was drafted and proposed was beyond scary to me!!!

my2monkeyboys replied: I know! It's frightening that there are people out there who want to take away our rights as parents. It shouldn't be a concern for "spankers" only. This is something that can impact every one of us. Hopefully it won't get passed, but the fact that it's been brought up now will only speed us up to the moment when it will.

jcc64 replied: I'll try to tread lightly here. The one thing we all have to remember is that we filter information through our own individual lenses. By that I mean, if you are a reasonable, responsible, loving and attentive parent, you will react to things through that filter. You cannot conceive of a spanking going too far, or straying into abusive behavior because you don't operate that way. But this proposal, which I admit I know nothing about, seems to be attempting to address the propensity for corporal punishment to get out of control in certain situations. Not everyone that spanks does so rationally and calmly- some parents do in fact strike out in a rage, and when you consider the size discrepancy between a baby/toddler and an adult, the potential for injury, both physical and psychological, does exist. My brother is an acute care pediatrician, and believe me, very small children injured at the hands of the people who are supposed to protect them is an unfortunately common occurence.
Yes, laws already exist, but there are not enough social workers, police, etc, to insure the ongoing safety of at risk children. A law like this makes it crystal clear that laying your hands on a child this small is unacceptable, period. It's cut and dry- for some people, that's all they understand. I'm not delusional enough to think this will solve the issue of child abuse, but it's a small step in the right direction. There are many, many other ways to get your point across to a child.

my2monkeyboys replied: I agree with you about there being many adults that take anger out on a child, and that sometimes spanking leads to beatings for those people. My problem with the proposal is that it's not directed at those who abuse their children. It's directed at every parent. If this were to pass, then who's to say that those who pop their child's hand when the reach for a hot pot on the stove won't end up in jail??
As long as there is no abuse, it's not the government's place to dictate to me what I can or can't do with my child. That's the point I am so angry over.
I am all for protecting children, but this is not the way to do it. Toughen up the laws for abusers, spend the money to enforce the laws already on the books. When a child is abused, take him/her away permanently. Putting a dad in jail for swatting a 2-yr-old on the butt is not the answer. And, as sad as it is, we all know that those who actually abuse their children aren't going to stop bc another law is there to tell them not to.

Celestrina replied: I want to know why she feels that a law that will be impossible to enforce is worth spending her time and our money on. The only way anyone will know if a child that age has been spanked is if there is physical proof. If there is physical proof, then it has gone beyond spanking and is now abuse. There are far more important things concerning children today.

jcc64 replied:


Yes, that's true, there are always going to be people who are out of control and who don't have the ability to connect consequence with behavior- otherwise, the death penalty should have eradicated murder, right? But because this law casts a wide net, included in that net are the abusers as well as the upstanding parent who prefers to punish her child physically. However, one would hope and expect that the legal system would employ the appropriate logic and subsequent response in each individual case. Look, if a father swats his kid on the behind for touching a hot stove, it is unlikely that this case would ever come to the attention of the authorities. However, it does give overburdened case workers and first responders another tool to reach at risk kids BEFORE they become another tragic statistic. I suspect that was the spirit of the law as it was intended. I don't think the gov't has any interest or inclination to break up or destroy functional, loving families.
And fwiw, I've never laid a hand on my kids- and somehow, they still got the message not to run in the street, touch the hot stove, be disrespectful or bite their siblings. There are other ways.

Calimama replied: I'm still torn. In some aspects it's intrusive and in other's it makes sense. If you were to slap your husband it's assault, yet when you hit your child it's not.

gr33n3y3z replied:
Very well said

luvbug00 replied: i heard this and laughed. that's all i have to say.

Jamison'smama replied: I'm going to chime in here. I don't know quite yet if I have a side on this. I am not a spanker but do know some excellent parents who choose that method on occasion. I teach parenting classes on the weekends. The primary attendees are those who have been mandated by Children's Services to take my class. I have seen all kinds of parents come through and you'd be surprised how many actually do not know what excessive spanking is. Part of the class is letting them know what is reportable as child abuse in this state. It is spanking a child under 1, spanking with ANY object other than your hand, spanking any body part other than the hands or buttocks and spanking a child with any emotional or medical disabilities. There is not a handout given when a child is born that states how much or how often is okay to spank. For most of you, it is common sense but as we have said before, common sense isn't common. So, exactly where is the line drawn? I get people who hear that list and find it absurd. Someone has to draw a line and wherever it is drawn will make a group of people unhappy. We can say, draw the line at abuse but what is that exactly. We had a man come in who upon hearing his son say something disrespectful slapped him across the face bruising his ear..the son was 13...was that abuse? It was reported as so. I don't think the law will change anyone's parenting style however it may make a person think twice about using it as a primary form of discipline or using it in excess.

3_call_me_mama replied:
Very true
I fully support any child right to not be struck. No matter how lightly it is done or the intention behind it.

My3LilMonkeys replied:
My thoughts exactly. Unless the child is being spanked in public, how will they enforce it?

Kentuckychick replied:
I know here it's considered "excessive" if you leave a mark, any mark at all on your child. I've never hit a child enough to even leave a red spot, but I've seen others do so... and I know I got several spankings that left marks (though I still wouldn't consider those particular spankings abusive, again... where to draw a line)

I think it's just absurd to talk about creating new laws when they don't even enforce the child abuse laws that are already in place. I've seen people I KNOW are child abusers walk... without so much as a tap on the wrist. My best friend's cousin has a daughter who is 2... she weighs 15 lbs. (only 3 lbs. more than my best friend's 5 month old) Her mother never fed her baby food, and gave her only water in a bottle because she was "spit-upy" They don't take her to a pediatrician, just to the state facility to get free shots and they've reported them EVERY time. The last time she went the doctor asked if the baby had ever been sexually abused. The mother found this amusing.

My best friend is appauled by all of this. Her father is a social worker in that county and because he's family he can NOT do anything about it. Though he's told the other social workers everytime that they need to REALLY look into it. The problem is, in that small town, everyone knows everyone, she has connections and no one will do anything about it.

The statistics are disgusting,
- every year in almost 1/2 confirmed cases of child abuse, there is no type of service issued to the parents or families to prevent re-abuse.
- 40-50% of ALL children who die from abuse and neglect in the US have had PREVIOUS referrals to agencies that are supposed to protect them. (Every one of these cases COULD have been prevented!)

THIS is the problem... not spanking. Children who are seriously being abused are slipping through the system time and time again. And many times, by the time someone figures it out, it's too late.

Our country needs to step it up and focus on what's really going on!

Jamison'smama replied: I absolutely agree that there are significant problems with our social service systems, I see it weekly. I know that there is a severe lack of funding for these agencies, the training is often times less than adequate and the workers have far to many cases to monitor them as well as they needed. I would like to see some statistics on how many children were helped by services, we will never know how many lives were saved physically or emotionally but I do agree that reform is absolutely needed.

redchief replied: I have a problem with this proposed law, not because I advocate spanking, because I absolutely don't. I have a problem with this proposal because the intent is clearly to open the door to more government in our homes.

The bill, which was still being drafted, would make the crime a misdemeanor and be written to ban "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that." Democrat Sally Lieber of San Francisco, a member of the state legislature, said on introducing the bill.

I see way too much room for wide interpretation by local law enforcement in the wording and intent of this piece of legislative garbage. Unfortunately for the State of California and it's conservatives, this bill will become law there. Further, NJ often seems to follow in the footsteps the loopy California legislature. You see, it's a perfect liberal bill. If you support it you champion the safety of children. If you oppose it you are a child beating Neanderthal. My personal view that spanking is not a necessary discipline technique would be irrelevant and lost in the background. My position that the government already has the legal tools it needs to protect our children, and that this is just another government move to destroy our right to privacy in our homes would be lost amid the finger pointing and admonition of my Neanderthal attitude. Again, the government has the tools it needs to protect the kids; they simply don't have the ability to do so because the system remains broken, and most likely ever will due to bureaucratic red tape levels that rival any state and federal civil oversight group.

But what's really funny about the sponsor of this bill is this, Assemblymember Sally Lieber, of San Francisco voted pro-choice 100% of the time throughout her legislative career. Sounds like a woman who cares about kids to me.

Kentuckychick replied:
Oh absolutely, children are saved every single day by these services, I'm not knocking them altogether, please don't get me wrong there! Social work is a big part of what I'm going to be doing when I graduate so I definitely think that it helps children in need...

the problem is that it's disgusting we're worried about these types of issues when children who've already been abused are being returned to those abusive homes only to be beaten to death. Or when children and families in poor areas where neglect is the most prevelant type of abuse aren't given any advice more than "feed your kids or we'll come take them again"... because honestly what good does that do? It's not every area, but we have some poor mountain areas here in Kentucky where when there's abuse, it's no "easy fix."

And you made a great point... social workers are already so bogged down with the REAL issues, can you imagine the amount of work they had to do if every simple, honest to goodness, no bodily harm done spanking anyone ever saw HAD to be reported because it broke a law... I can't imagine.

redchief replied: I know that I don't seem a big fan of Sally Lieber, and that's true. I wanted to add that this woman has no children. She's very proud of her cat though.

A&A'smommy replied: welll thats hard to say.. for me anyway alyssa got spanking when she was 2 (nothing more than a tiny little pop on the bottom or hand) but so many parents take it WAY too far when they are that young I think you should start them when they are young so they understand what they are, and why they are getting them but then again some parents don't do it the RIGHT way!!!

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
For what it's worth...I'm sure that government agents, cops and social workers won't be looking in your window while you're cooking, to make sure you don't slap your toddler on the hand when he's reaching for a hot stove.

And, for what it's worth, people who beat their children, know how to do it so that it doesn't show (bruises etc...), they can be pretty skilled at it. It's unfortunate.

Ban or not, nobody will dictate what I can and cannot do in my own home. And if I was going to slap my kids' hands over something they're about to do that is dangerous, I'm not going to *not do it* just because some law says so. And, slapping a hand is not a spanking. A spanking, to me anyways, is on the bum.

We forget that many laws in many of the states are just plain STUPID, such as you can't walk your cow down the road on sundays, you can't wear a hat down Main street on Sundays, oral sex is prohibited, yet how many of those so called stupid laws are broken all the time.... really...

Any responsible parent will realize that this law will not affect them, because their children are spanked when needed, not just swatted all the time and at nothing. It's for people who use spanking for EVERYTHING, and in public, where the child is humiliated as well. A parent that spanks a toddler in public over something trivial, and can't wait until they get home, where the setting is more appropriate, and besides, it gives time to calm down or whatever... should't be spanking the child in the first place, because the potential for "out of control parent' is there.

I'm sure something like a toddler running away from the parent and running out in the street and almost being struck by a vehicle would be reason for even the most passive of parents to spank... but at home, after explanations... and if the first reaction is to spank, instead of hugging the child tight and thanking your lucky stars he's safe... well.... maybe that's why the law is being put into place...

McKenna replied: This kind of law is already in place in the United Kingdom, and it's ridiculously stupid, they say that spanking can lead to emotional distress, I was spanked and when I deserved it given a right clout round the head when I was a kid, am I emotionally disturbed, i don't think so!!

Discipline is required when as a child grows up, I'm all for non-physical methods of discipline but it some cases they just don't work and a smack across the legs or backside sorts it out in short measure.

I'm am extremely against laws of this nature.

I think the wording of the law here is that no mark must be left other than a white or red mark which passes in moments, anything more than that is technically illegal.

sem replied: I don't necessarily agree with the law. As long as you are not abusing your child, you should be able to discipline them in the manner you choose. In additiona, this law is totally unenforcable. What are they gonna do, go into everyone's house to catch them spanking?

boyohboyohboy replied:
i totally agree with you stephanie...I dont think the issue is whether or not to spank...its about the freedoms that keep being taken away when the government gets to decide what you will and wont do.

redplaydoh replied: Enough has been said that supports my view. I'm not an advocate of "spanking" but there are circumstances that a pop on the bottom startles them enough they remember... we pop our boy's bottoms when they are out of control or are headed for a dangerous situation. To ban this is ridiculous.

boyohboyohboy replied:
i totally agree with you stephanie...I dont think the issue is whether or not to spank...its about the freedoms that keep being taken away when the government gets to decide what you will and wont do.

Crystalina replied: If it passes in California it will surely spread throughout the country like the plague. Just like no smoking in public places. I'm not saying I don't enjoy eating and not inhaling someone elses tobacco product but that isn't really the point.

I understand that it may filter out the child abusers but I don't think they are going to be creating anymore jobs to inforce this which means it will be a law on the books that will work one day and not the next. It will not work when a parent is beating the crap out of their child but if I'm in the park with my son and he gets a bug up his butt to throw sand at another child and I give him a swat for it you can bet your sweet patooty there will be someone there to enforce it that day. I do spank my kids. Not often because they are good but it seems when they do need a spank on the butt it's always in Wal-Mart because Evan doesn't get the toy he wants and throws himself on the floor. At home he wouldn't do that. In the store where there is an audience for his little preformance...you betcha. Should I not give him a spank after repeating myself for him to get off the floor? Most people wouldn't look twice at a 3 yr old getting a spank for that but let that one person know about that law and put them in the "good samaritan/save the child" mood and there ya go.

coasterqueen replied:
Ok, I agreed w/you up until you said time outs and other things work just as well, lol. I can't get A N Y T H I N G to work with Megan. This kid is like no other.

coasterqueen replied:
You know though, if we keep making more laws we might as well just let the government decide everything for us.....guess we wouldn't be such a free country then would we?

What they need to do is figure out a way to get more funding for social workers, etc then instead of putting in more laws. Who is going to enforce these laws. So if joe blow on the street lightly pats his kid on the bottom and jane doe sees him and calls it in then a police has to come out and deal with it. It's going to cost there too.

I'm not for spanking, don't get me wrong, but I am for less government trying to tell me what I can and can not do and I'm for laws that make sense. I haven't read this law in detail, but the simple jist of it is absolutely foolish, IMO.

mom2my2cuties replied:

Actually last night she specifically said ANY form of spanking was punishible by up to 1 year in jail no matter. She did an interview with Glenn Beck on Headline News last night and he asked her if there were any forms allowed.

Personally, I hope this law goes no where. It's absurd, people are calling non stop for the government to "Get out of marriages, bedrooms, etc" and yet they have no problem charging into the parenting relationship and butting in. I am now very much a child abuse advocate. But I honestly do not believe this law is going to do any good in that sense. As it's not punishing the child abuser, it is punishing the parents who are trying to correct thier children's behavior. The child abuser is going to slip through while they are busy trying to prosecute the good parents.

And thier claim that the rise in Juvinille crime is due to more corporal punishment by the parents if flat out stupid. I seriously do not think that our country has a problem with more parents disiplining thier children. I think it is the other way around. More and more children are dealing with absentee parents and being raised by friends, schools, television, etc and are recieving NO discipline.

I have never more than swatted either of the kids. And it is always on the bottom or on the hand. Nothing more than that has ever been needed. And frankly, I have two GREAT kids. Well mannered, polite, mostly well behaved children. Rarely do I use time outs, I will take away items, send them to thier rooms, that sort of thing, but time out doesn't work for either of my kids really. And that being said, I do NOTthink spanking an infant in ANY way is acceptable. However by 12-15 months old my daughter new that if I swatted her hand for something and told her no, that she was doing wrong. And she would test me by slowly reaching for it while I was watching to see how far she could get.

If this were a law preventing spanking of a child under 1 when they REALLY can't understand, that would be one thing, but when they are going on 2 and DEFINATELY as they are going on 3 they do understand that there are consequences for thier actions and the punishment that follows.

I know ALL too well that some parents take it to excess. But I also know that this law wont change that. Because child abusers dont do thier "abuse" in front of people. It is behind closed doors. And unless that child reports it or by chance someone sees something nothing will change that. Those who abuse thier children, are aware that there are already laws in place for these things, and disregard them. What is one more broken law to these people?

jcc64 replied: Well, since Ed felt ok about turning this into a partisan debate, I'll bite. I agree 100% that there are already sufficient tools, legally speaking, to address and/or remedy the issue of child abuse. The question, then, is why aren't they working?
Again, I was not inclined to turn this into a liberal vs conservative debate, but since the conversation has already been steered in that direction, I have to respond. Perhaps the reason is that social services, and the children in its charge, are perenially disregarded, disenfranchised, and in every way, shape, or form, marginalized by conservative policies. Case workers are overburdened because there simply aren't enough of them- this is not rocket science. And maybe, just maybe, if we can somehow manage to come up with the $300 million PER DAY to finance the trainwreck in Iraq, and if children and their well being are TRULY a national priority and not just a convenient campaign slogan, then we should be able to adequately fund our children's advocacy agencies. Until that happens, I'll support any and every piddling, anemic little attempt at righting a wrong, however inefficient or useless it seems.
And I agree, I don't like gov't transgressions into our homes or private lives. But Ed, no president has done more to destroy our personal freedoms and protections than your beloved GW. So let's at least be consistent.

coasterqueen replied: Ed, I didn't read any responses when I replied to this post, but I totally like your thinking. ITA.

redchief replied:
There's this feeling among many that because I have conservative views I love George W. Bush. I don't. He's done dismal political and military needs foresight jobs in the Middle East, and gotten a lot of poor kids killed and seriously injured on account of it. That's all I'm going to say on that because this statement was way off topic.

jem0622 replied: It won't be passed into law. I won't go any further.

Boo&BugsMom replied:
THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!! THANK YOU!!!

I almost transfered to a college for early childhood edu. whose head professor bases her teachings on her dogs! What is wrong with this world?!?!