ATTORNEY PAUL A. KSICINSKI 414-530-5214
ATTORNEY PAUL A. KSICINSKI
TOP 100 WISCONSIN CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
​414-530-5214
  • Home
  • References
  • PEER ENDORSEMENTS
  • PAST CASES
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
  • How to deal with police
  • Practice Areas
  • About
  • Criminal Law Links
  • News

Discussion of current legal issues

Henry Nellum case selected by USA Network as a compelling homicide trial to keep an eye on in 2018

Button Text

A parent has a fundamental liberty interest to spank a child.   

4/5/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

The family traditionally has occupied a unique and protected position in American jurisprudence; courts recognized that the family's autonomy and freedom from state interference were crucial to its own integrity and to the welfare of the nation.  L. WARDLE, C. BLAKESLEY & J. PARKER, CONTEMPORARY FAMILY LAW §§ 1.08-1.09 (1988) (discussing courts' recognition of family autonomy and the right of parents to raise their children without state interference).  The United States Supreme Court has held that "constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society."  Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968).  Emphasis added.  The United States Supreme Court has “recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected." Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).  This is "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), and "rights far more precious . . . than property rights." May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953).  United States Supreme Court decisions “establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”  Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion).  Indeed, when confronted with a case involving parent and child, a court must give great weight to the sanctity for the relationships that develop within the unitary family.  Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 123-24 (1989) (plurality opinion) (rejecting biological father’s liberty interest for the historically recognized rights of the marital father).
 
It is plain that the fundamental liberty interests of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of her child "come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements." Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 95 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).  The private interest in question here, that of a parent who has raised a child, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).  See, Kenosha Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845 (holding that the mother, Jodie, had a fundamental liberty interest in parenting her son). 
 
The Wisconsin Legislature has recognized that care, custody, and management of a child by a parent includes the right to “train and discipline” the child.  Wis. Stat. § 48.02(12).  "Discipline" is defined as "instruction, comprehending the communication of knowledge and training to observe and act in accordance with rules and orders."  Black's Law Dictionary 464 (6th ed. 1990)  Interestingly, people are unsure of the meaning of discipline as “discipline” as it is currently in the top 1% of lookups at Merriam-Webster.com.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discipline  By definition, it is also synonymous with "correction," ("To punish (as a child) with a view to reforming or improving." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 260 (10th ed. 1996)); "chastisement,"  ("To inflict punishment on (as by whipping); ... to censure severely." Id. at 194, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastisement) Emphasis added; "punishment,"  ("Suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution." Id. at 947); and "penalty."  ("A disadvantage, loss, or hardship due to some action." Id. at 858).  The term “train” means to “to form by instruction, discipline, or drill”  Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/train  These terms denote repeated consequences imposed upon children for moral or legal transgressions.  Because of their emotional and intellectual incapacity, sometimes these consequences must be physical punishment. When discipline is physical, its purpose is not to inflict pain or cause injury, but to improve the behavior of the child.  “Corporal punishment” is defined as the “intentional infliction of physical pain which is used as a means of discipline. Corporal punishment" includes, but is not limited to, paddling, slapping or prolonged maintenance of physically painful positions, when used as a means of discipline.”  Wis. Stat. § 118.31 (2011)
 
The United States Supreme Court has recognized parents must have the freedom to choose how to discipline their own children.  "[F]reedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, (1982).  This freedom of personal choice in family matters gives parents wide latitude in deciding how to discipline their children without "undue, adverse interference by the State."  Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 639 n.18 (1979); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166(1944) (finding there exists a “private realm of family life which the State cannot enter); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888) (the legislature, when not restrained by constitutional provisions and a regard for fundamental rights of citizens which are the basis for all government, will act upon everything).  
 
Protected parental choice has been a reoccurring theme in a number of United States Supreme Court opinions in a variety of contexts.  See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213-14 (1972) (holding that parents' "fundamental interest" in guiding their children's religious upbringing is reflected in the "history and culture of Western civilization"); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (holding that marriage and procreation are basic civil rights); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 518 (1925) (stating that parents have a liberty interest in guiding their children's intellectual and religious development); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (recognizing the authority of parents to control their children's education).  The due process, see Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 501-02 (1977); Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399 and equal protection, see Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 391 (1979); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 649 (1972) clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 487-99 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring) (asserting that the Court should consult the "'traditions and [collective] conscience'" of the country as a source of establishing fundamental rights), each provide the family unit with protection from unwarranted state intrusion.  See also, State v. Zittlow, 2001 WI App 121; 244 Wis. 2d 287; 628 N.W.2d 437, citing In re Z.E.R., 225 Wis. 2d 628, 648, 593 N.W. 2d 840 (Ct. App. 1999); State v. Teynor, 141 Wis. 2d 187, 200, 414 N.W.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1987).
 
However, regardless in what Amendment(s) the parent child relationship is found by a Court, "[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder."  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).  Emphasis added.  See also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 57 (2000) (parents who have developed a relationship with their children have a fundamental liberty interest in the "care, custody, and control of their children."); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).  Part of having the care, custody, and control of a child involves imposing discipline since a parent cannot properly care or control a disobedient child without the ability to discipline the child.  Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 661 (1977); Wendy Anton Fitzgerald, Maturity, Difference, and Mystery: Children’s Perspectives and the Law, 36 ARIZ. L. REV. 11, 37(1994) (‘[t]he law characterizes the parent’s right to punish a child as constitutional because the right resides in a parent’s broad constitutional right to care, custody, and control of [their] children”).
 
The right of a parent to discipline their child is the “oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the United States Supreme] Court.”  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); In re RGB, 123 Haw. 1, 229 P. 3d 1066, 1121 (2010); In re Doe, 57 P.3d 447, 457 (2002).  This right to discipline includes the right to use reasonable corporal punishment.  Doe v. Lang, 327 F.3d 492, 523 (7th Cir. 2003);  Lang v. Starke County Office of Family and Children, 861 N.E. 2d 366, 378 (Ind. App. 2007).  This is a fundamental constitutional right not dependent upon legislative recognition by statute.  See, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 545 (1997).  In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act which is the 'deprivation of liberty' triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause.  DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 198, 200 (1989).

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    These are reflections I have had about our criminal justice system.  Some of it may make sense, some of it might not.

    Archives

    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.