This post is part of a series<\/a> examining the role of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) in aiding and abetting child abuse. I have previously looked at HSLDA\u2019s efforts to prevent the reporting of child abuse<\/a> and their efforts to stonewall child abuse investigations<\/a>. In this post I will turn to HSLDA\u2019s defense of child abuse.<\/p>\n HSLDA has made a name for itself defending parents\u2019 right to spank their children and spends a good bit of its time and energy monitoring and opposing new child abuse legislation\u2014an odd activity for an organization nominally devoted to protecting the legality of homeschooling<\/em>. While HSLDA literature continually talks about the importance of defending parents\u2019 use of \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment, the organization has never taken the time to define just what constitutes<\/em> \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment. Similarly, while HSLDA occasionally makes statements condemning child abuse, I\u2019ve noticed a bit of a pattern\u2014these statements are always followed<\/a> with the word<\/a> \u201chowever.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Hiding and Ignoring Child Abuse <\/strong><\/p>\n In its literature, HSLDA (to my knowledge) never defines \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment, never warns its member families not to abuse their children, and never tells its member families how to handle child abuse they might see in other families in their homeschooling communities. HSLDA\u2019s attorneys are not pioneers in stopping child abuse in homeschooling families; they are pioneers in disabling child abuse protections. Never once does HSLDA touch on how to solve the child abuse problem, perhaps because they don\u2019t see it as a significant problem or perhaps simply because they see it as something \u201cother\u201d people do, not problem some of their own member families<\/em> might have. While you could argue that HSLDA sees child abuse detection and prevent as important but not as a homeschooling issue, this makes no sense when you consider the amount of time HSLDA spends working to disarm protections for abused children.<\/p>\n Let me give an example of the sort of advice HSLDA gives regarding child abuse and child protective services\u2014In a document titled \u201cThe Social Worker at Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints<\/a>,\u201d HSLDA attorney Christopher Klicka advised parents as follows:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Avoid potential situations that could lead to a child welfare investigation.<\/p>\n b. Do not spank children in public.<\/p>\n c. Do not spank someone else\u2019s child unless they are close Christian friends.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In other words, Klicka is aware that HSLDA member families physically discipline their children in ways many people would consider abusive, and even find concerning enough to actually call Child Protective Services. But instead of addressing where the line between \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment and child abuse is located<\/em>, he merely advises HSLDA member families to avoid the use of corporal punishment in public<\/em>. This displays a remarkable lack of care about the very real problem of child abuse, as well as an inability to consider that any of its member families might actually discipline their children in ways that are abusive and should be stopped.<\/p>\n Further, Klicka advises HSLDA member families to restrict their use of corporal punishment on children outside their families to the children of \u201cclose Christian friends.\u201d This statement seems to imply that without this suggestion, HSLDA member parents might spank children outside of their families without their parents\u2019 permission and be reported to Child Protective Services for doing so\u2014and also that close Christian friends will de facto be okay with them spanking their children without asking first. After all, why not say \u201cDo not spank someone else\u2019s child unless you have their permission<\/em>\u201c? Or even, why not say \u201cDo not spank someone else\u2019s child\u201d and leave it there?<\/p>\n There is also the problem of omission\u2014for all of the advice HSLDA gives on how its member families can recognize, avoid, or stonewall child abuse investigation,<\/em> the organization never takes two seconds to inform its member families how to recognize and avoid child abuse or even how to handle or deal with child abuse in their homeschooling families or communities. One wonders if there are any circumstances at all in which HSLDA would ever recommend that its member families involve CPS.<\/p>\n What Is Child Abuse?<\/strong><\/p>\n HSLDA\u2019s member manual states that<\/a> \u201cHSLDA believes that child abuse is a terrible crime and that true abusers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.\u201d Note the use of the word \u201ctrue.\u201d The more I read, the more convinced I become that HSLDA does not define<\/em> child abuse in the same way as most Americans. For example, HSLDA is on record defending foster parents\u2019 rights to use corporal punishment<\/a> on their foster children, something most Americans would find disturbing. Further, it\u2019s worth noting that the sentence above is one of the many times HSLDA briefly condemns child abuse and then starts the next sentence with the word \u201cHowever\u201d (see page 3, column 2 of the link).<\/p>\n The only time anyone at HSLDA comes close to discussing what actually counts as child abuse is in discussing a 2008 California law that would have added to the penal code a list of actions for jurors to consider when determining if a form of discipline is \u201cunjustifiable.\u201d In a Washington Times op ed<\/a>, HSLDA president J. Michael Smith explained that HSLDA had no problem with most of the items on the list\u2014stating that these things were indeed child abuse\u2014and that the organization only opposed the law because it took exemption to the listing of hitting children with objects. Here are his words:<\/p>\n This bill amends Penal Code section 273(a), which makes it a crime to cause unjustifiable pain, harm or injury to any minor child. If the bill passes, spanking with an object such as a stick, rod or switch would be lumped in with throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.<\/p>\n Striking a child with a fist. Striking a child under 3 years of age on the face or head. Vigorously shaking of a child under 3 years of age. Interfering with a child\u2019s breathing. Brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child. These are all factors that a jury could use to conclude that a defendant in a criminal case has inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.<\/p>\n What the bill would do is to equate discipline administered via an implement with the above conduct, which obviously is abusive behavior toward a child.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now of course, this is no actual laying out of a comprehensive definition of child abuse\u2014Smith merely goes down the items listed in the bill. Further, I\u2019m less than willing to trust what HSLDA spokespeople say in public forums given that Farris claimed in an article for popular readership that requiring social workers to have either parental consent or a warrant to enter a home was be no biggie because the vast, vast majority of people voluntarily let social workers in, even as the organization advises its members to never never never let a social worker into their homes without a warrant, ever<\/em>. Still, it does appear that HSLDA does view some actions\u2014such as violently shaking a small child or striking a child with a fist\u2014to be child abuse. Whether it warns its member families against these actions or ever takes the time to define \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment, however, is another story.<\/p>\n For the record, I am personally against any form of physical punishment of children, and am raising my two young children without laying a hand to them. In contrast, many conservative Christians, including those who founded and run HSLDA, believe strongly that the Bible demands that parents use corporal punishment on their children (they take \u201cspare the rod, spoil the child\u201d stuff literally). Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two positions: they believe that some form of corporal punishment can be employed without crossing the line into child abuse, but also that spanking should consist merely of swatting a child\u2019s buttocks with an open hand and that this form of punishment is usually unnecessary. The question I want to ask here is not whether or not corporal punishment is acceptable but rather where HSLDA draws the line<\/em> between \u201creasonable corporal punishment\u201d on the one hand and child abuse on the other. The reason I titled this post as I have is that HSLDA appears to define child abuse differently from the average American<\/em>.<\/p>\n Given that HSLDA never defines \u201creasonable corporal punishment\u201d or gives any sort of comprehensive definition of child abuse, I want to take a look at the organization\u2019s positions regarding three different proposed state child abuse statute changes over the past five years. Their positions and advocacy on these bills represent a small fraction of HSLDA\u2019s monitoring of child abuse statute changes across the nation\u2014something the organization watches very closely and doesn\u2019t hesitate to use its e-alert system to mobilize its members in lobbying\u2014but should give us a sample of how HSLDA talks about and defines \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment and what it does or does not include as child abuse.<\/p>\n HSLDA in California: Don\u2019t Restrict Disciplining with Objects!<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019ll start with the HSLDA\u2019s opposition to the proposed 2008 revision of California\u2019s child abuse statute referenced above. At the time, the state\u2019s statute<\/a> banned causing children \u201cunjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.\u201d The new bill kept this same language but added the following<\/a>:<\/p>\n In a prosecution under this Section in determining whether or not a defendant willfully caused any child to suffer, or inflicted unjustifiable physical pain, or mental suffering, a jury may consider any of the following:<\/p>\n a) The use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.<\/p>\n b) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child.<\/p>\n c) Striking a child with a closed fist.<\/p>\n d) Striking a child under the age of three on the face or head.<\/p>\n e) Vigorous shaking of a child under the age of three.<\/p>\n f) Interference with a child\u2019s breathing.<\/p>\n g) Brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child. However, the above conduct is not sufficient by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and significance, if any, is for the jury to decide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n HSLDA explained its opposition to this change as follows<\/a>:<\/p>\n The instructions to a jury which are mandated by the current version of A.B. 2943 would state that a jury may consider that physical pain or mental suffering inflicted upon a child is unjustifiable if it is caused by any of the seven kinds of actions\u2026. The first of the seven actions listed is \u201cthe use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe.\u201d This first action includes the act of spanking with an object other than using one\u2019s hand. Because these items would be listed in the Penal Code, the police and district attorney would likely consider all spanking with an implement grounds for bringing charges against the parents<\/strong>. Then a court trial would determine if the parents are guilty of criminal child abuse. Parents would have the difficult task of proving that the spanking was justifiable to the satisfaction of the court in order to avoid being sent to jail for up to one year or receiving other penalties.<\/strong> The case also could be referred to Child Protective Services (CPS) and Juvenile Court, which could result in the possible temporary or permanent loss of custody of their children.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, HSLDA opposed this bill because it listed beating child with a stick, rod, or electrical cord as a factor the jury should take into account when determining whether or not the actions of a parent accused of child abuse were justifiable. Indeed, HSLDA has a pattern of opposing laws<\/a> that would ban hitting children with objects, even without banning spanking itself. We can safely conclude that HSLDA does not consider hitting children with objects to be child abuse.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s another reason I started with this example, and that\u2019s because of the way HSLDA uses this sort of case in an attempt to induce fear in its member families, distorting the facts and engaging in hyperbole in order to do so. I mean just look at the title of HSLDA president J. Michael Smith\u2019s Washington Times op ed\u2019s<\/a> title: \u201cCalifornia May Ban Spanking.\u201d This bill absolutely would not have banned spanking, and it would not have even banned the use of a paddle\u2014it would instead have merely stated that when determining whether the pain a parent inflicted on a child was unjustifiable, the jury should consider whether an implement should be used. But none of that mattered to HSLDA, which saw a chance to hold the specter of a complete ban on spanking over the head of its member followers.<\/p>\n HSLDA in Mississippi: \u201cReasonable Discipline\u201d Exemption Not Enough<\/strong><\/p>\n Next we move to the Deep South. In January of 2012 HSLDA opposed a change to Mississippi\u2019s child abuse statute. Let\u2019s start by looking at the original text of this section<\/a> of Mississippi\u2019s code:<\/p>\n (2) (a) Any person who shall intentionally (i) burn any child, (ii) torture any child or, (iii) except in self-defense or in order to prevent bodily harm to a third party, whip, strike or otherwise abuse or mutilate any child in such a manner as to cause serious bodily harm, shall be guilty of felonious abuse of a child and, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for life or such lesser term of imprisonment as the court may determine, but not less than ten (10) years. For any second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, if you burn or torture a child, or whip or strike a child so as to cause that child serious bodily harm, you can be prosecuted for child abuse. Brice Wiggins, a Republican state senator, became convinced that the statute did not do enough to penalize child abuse, and introduced a bill to entirely rewrite this section of the code. So let\u2019s look at how his 2012 bill would have amended the code<\/a>:<\/p>\n (2) (a) (i) A person shall be guilty of felonious abuse <\/strong>of a child if the person intentionally and in a manner causing bodily harm shall:<\/p>\n 1. Burn any child;<\/p>\n 2. Torture any child; <\/strong><\/p>\n 3. Strangle or choke any child;<\/p>\n 4. Disfigure, scar or mutilate any child; or<\/p>\n 5. Whip, strike or otherwise abuse any child except as a result of reasonable discipline, in self-defense or in order to prevent bodily harm to a third party.<\/p>\n (ii) A person who is convicted of felonious abuse of a child shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for life or such lesser term of imprisonment as the court may determine, but not less than ten (10) years. For any second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n (iii) Reasonable discipline shall be a defense to any criminal charge brought under this subsection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The new statute would prohibit striking or whipping a child so as to cause \u201cbodily harm,\u201d rather than \u201cserious bodily harm\u201d as in the previous statute, but would also insert an exception to this prohibition for \u201creasonable discipline.\u201d Or to put it another way, while parents before could legally strike or whip their children so as to cause bodily harm whether or not it was done as part of \u201creasonable discipline\u201d (just so long as they didn\u2019t cause serious<\/em> bodily harm), under the new revisions parents could only strike or whip their children so as to cause bodily harm as part of \u201creasonable discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n HSLDA opposed this revision, explaining as follows<\/a>:<\/p>\n Summary: This bill would make it a felony to \u201cwhip, strike or otherwise abuse any child,\u201d thereby causing bodily harm to the child. The maximum penalty would be life in prison. \u201cReasonable discipline\u201d would be an exception to this offense, but what is reasonable would be left up to judges to decide.<\/p>\n HSLDA\u2019s Position: This bill has the potential to send a parent to prison for life for spanking a child. This bill should be opposed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n First note the fear mongering: \u201cThis bill has the potential to send a parent to prison for life for spanking a child.\u201d This makes absolutely no sense\u2014listing a \u201creasonable discipline\u201d exemption to a law that banned striking a child so as to cause bodily harm clearly indicates that striking your child so as to cause harm can be<\/em> reasonable discipline. Else why the exemption? In other words, contrary to what HSLDA told its member families, the bill would actually have codified spanking as \u201creasonable discipline.\u201d <\/em>HSLDA\u2019s actions here were nothing short of lying and conniving fear mongering\u2014and HSLDA did kick up a good bit of fear as conservative media outlets picked up<\/a> the story<\/a>, quoting HSLDA spokespeople and running alarmed headlines like \u201cMiss. Bill Could Mean Life Imprisonment for Parents.\u201d Given that HSLDA makes its money off of selling legal insurance, scare mongering is where it\u2019s at its best. In fact, some have suggested that the organization may intentionally beef up the legal alerts it sends out right around the time it does its membership drive<\/a>.<\/p>\n HSLDA claimed to oppose the bill because \u201creasonable discipline\u201d was not defined and would be left up to judges to interpret. What this indicates to me is that HSLDA is aware that its member families define \u201creasonable discipline\u201d appreciably differently from most Americans\u2014or at least differently from Mississippi judges. What HSLDA wanted was for the law to allow its members to strike or whip their children so as to cause bodily harm without having to prove to judges that their actions constituted \u201creasonable discipline,\u201d or at the very least an expansive and detailed definition of what constituted \u201creasonable discipline.\u201d And HSLDA got its way when a new version of the bill<\/a> was introduced early this year<\/a>\u2014a bill HSLDA did not oppose. Here is how this bill amended the statute to read:<\/p>\n (2) Any person shall be guilty of felonious child abuse in the following circumstances:<\/p>\n (a) Whether bodily harm results or not, if the person shall intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:<\/p>\n (i) Burn any child;<\/p>\n (ii) Physically torture any child;<\/p>\n (iii) Strangle, choke, smother, or in any way interfere with any child\u2019s breathing;<\/p>\n (iv) Poison a child;<\/p>\n (v) Starve a child of nourishments needed to sustain life or growth;<\/p>\n (vi) Use any type of deadly weapon upon any child;<\/p>\n (b) If some bodily harm to any child actually occurs, and if the person shall intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:<\/p>\n (i) Throw, kick, bite, or cut any child;<\/p>\n (ii) Strike a child under the age of fourteen (14) about the face or head with a closed fist;<\/p>\n (iii) Strike a child under the age of five (5) in the face or head;<\/p>\n (iv) Kick, bite, cut or strike a child\u2019s genitals; circumcision of a male child is not a violation under this subpagragraph;<\/p>\n (c) If serious bodily harm to any child actually occurs, and if the person shall intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:<\/p>\n (i) Strike any child on the face or head;<\/p>\n (ii) Disfigure or scar any child;<\/p>\n (iii) Whip, strike, or otherwise abuse any child;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The new bill banned striking or whipping a child so as to cause them \u201cserious bodily harm\u201d but made a broad allowance for causing a child bodily harm, excepting only bodily harm caused by throwing, kicking, biting, or cutting, striking a child under 14 in the face or head with a closed fist, striking a child under 5 in the face or head, and kicking, biting, cutting, or striking a child\u2019s genitals. Or to put it another way, under the new bill it would be legal to cause your child bodily harm without having to prove that doing so constituted \u201creasonable discipline,\u201d so long as that bodily harm was not caused by things like biting, kicking, punching in the face, or trauma to the genitals. With this change, HSLDA no longer saw this law as a threat to its members\u2019 \u201cright\u201d to discipline their children using \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment.<\/p>\n Just how did the law define \u201cbodily harm\u201d and \u201cserious bodily harm\u201d?<\/p>\n (e) For the purposes of this subsection (2), \u201cbodily harm\u201d means any bodily injury to a child that includes, but is not limited to, bruising, bleeding, lacerations, soft tissue swelling, and external or internal swelling of any body organ.<\/p>\n (f) For the purposes of this subsection (2), \u201cserious bodily harm\u201d means any serious bodily injury to a child and includes, but is not limited to, the fracture of a bone, permanent disfigurement, permanent scarring, or any internal bleeding or internal trauma to any organ, any brain damage, any injury to the eye or ear of a child or other vital organ, and impairment of any bodily function.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With these definitions, then, the new bill left it legal for parents to beat their children so as to cause \u201cbruising, bleeding, lacerations, soft tissue swelling, and external or internal swelling of any body organ\u201d without even having to pass any sort of \u201creasonable discipline\u201d standard. The reason HSLDA had opposed the 2012 version of the bill\u2014but not this one\u2014was that the former version only allowed parents to strike or whip their children so as to cause bodily harm if it was done as part of \u201creasonable discipline,\u201d<\/em> a standard they did not want their member families burdened to meet. HSLDA was successful in opposing the original bill and this travesty of a child abuse statute is the result.<\/p>\n HSLDA in Florida: Significant Bruising and Welts are A-Okay<\/strong><\/p>\n Finally we turn to Florida. In 2010, HSLDA sent out a legislative alert<\/a> about Florida\u2019s Senate Bill 1360, urging its members to oppose the measure. Here is the text:<\/p>\n Summary: Includes inappropriate or excessively harsh corporal discipline in the definition of \u201ccriminal conduct\u201d for purposes of protective investigations. Prohibits parents, legal custodians, or caregivers from inflicting such corporal discipline. Provides penalties and applicability. Includes offenses involving inappropriate or excessively harsh corporal discipline within the offense severity ranking chart of the Criminal Punishment Code, etc.<\/p>\n HSLDA\u2019s Position: Oppose.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This one had me scratching my head. Why would HSLDA oppose a bill outlawing \u201cexcessively harsh corporal discipline\u201d? Isn\u2019t their typical line that they defend \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment (which they never define)? Doesn\u2019t that make them de facto against<\/em> excessively harsh corporal punishment? Just what \u201cinappropriate or excessively harsh\u201d corporal punishment did SB 130 add to the criminal code? Let\u2019s have a look at the text of the actual bill<\/a>. The bill begins as follows:<\/p>\n Section 1.\u2003Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 39.301, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:<\/p>\n (2) (b)\u2003As used in this subsection, the term \u201ccriminal conduct\u201d means:<\/p>\n 1.\u2003A child is known or suspected to be the victim of child abuse, as defined in s. 827.03; or of neglect of a child, as defined in s. 827.03; or of inappropriate or excessively harsh corporal discipline, as defined in s. 827.032.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, the statute originally listed \u201cchild abuse\u201d and \u201cneglect\u201d as \u201ccriminal conduct\u201d and this bill would have amended it to also include \u201cexcessively harsh corporal discipline\u201d alongside \u201cchild abuse\u201d and \u201cneglect.\u201d How does the bill define \u201cexcessively harsh corporal discipline\u201d?<\/p>\n Section 2.\u2003Section 827.032, Florida Statutes, is created to read:<\/p>\n 827.032\u2003Inappropriate or excessively harsh corporal discipline; penalties.\u2014<\/p>\n (1)\u2003As used in this section, the term \u201cinappropriate or excessively harsh corporal discipline\u201d means an act of discipline that results or could reasonably be expected to result in any of the following or other similar injuries:<\/p>\n (a)\u2003Sprains, dislocations, or cartilage damage.<\/p>\n (b)\u2003Bone or skull fractures.<\/p>\n (c)\u2003Brain or spinal cord damage.<\/p>\n (d)\u2003Intracranial hemorrhage or injury to other internal organs.<\/p>\n (e)\u2003Asphyxiation, suffocation, or drowning.<\/p>\n (f)\u2003Injury resulting from the use of a deadly weapon.<\/p>\n (g)\u2003Burns or scalding.<\/p>\n (h)\u2003Cuts, lacerations, punctures, or bites.<\/p>\n (i)\u2003Disfigurement.<\/p>\n (j)\u2003Loss or impairment of a body part or function.<\/p>\n (k)\u2003Significant bruises or welts.<\/p>\n (l)\u2003Mental injury, as defined in s. 39.01.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The bill defines excessively harsh corporal discipline, then, as that which results in bone fractures, suffocation, burns, cuts, disfigurements significant bruises and welts, etc. HSLDA did not explain its opposition to this bill. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that HSLDA opposed it because it listed \u201csignificant bruises or welts\u201d as \u201cexcessive corporal discipline.\u201d HSLDA\u2019s concern must have been that banning discipline that resulted in significant bruises and welts infringed on parents\u2019 rights to use \u201creasonable corporal punishment\u201d on their children. It seems, then, that disciplinary actions that leave \u201csignificant bruises or welts\u201d fit within HSLDA\u2019s definition of \u201creasonable corporal punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n Concluding Thoughts<\/strong><\/p>\n Given the lack of any word from HSLDA on what constitutes \u201creasonable\u201d corporal punishment, we have to piece together HSLDA\u2019s definition of that term by examining its positions on bills revising state child abuse statutes, which HSLDA monitors closely. What we find when we do this is that HSLDA opposes laws that would ban hitting children with physical objects, striking or whipping children so as to cause bodily harm in a manner that judges would not consider \u201creasonable discipline,\u201d and disciplining children in a manner that leaves significant bruises or welts. It would seem that all of these things fit within HSLDA\u2019s definition of \u201creasonable corporal punishment.\u201d And, beyond that, it appears that HSLDA is aware that its members use corporal punishment that many if not most Americans would consider child abuse.<\/p>\n If HSLDA\u2019s view of child abuse reporting and child abuse investigations as bad things that need to be cut down on or obstructed was disturbing, HSLDA\u2019s actions and views regarding child abuse itself are more so.<\/p>\n