It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Locked up for smacking my son ...

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:53 AM

Locked up for smacking my son ...

Guy is our 11-year-old son. And my crime? Smacking him once after he had ignored my warnings to stop his temper tantrum and repeated swearing.

He and his 16-year-old brother, Oliver, had then concocted a tissue of lies claiming we had starved and beaten them and - far worse in their eyes - refused to let them have their games consoles.

But rather than examining my well-fed younger son and his unmarked, if rebellious brother, the police had called in social services and arrested us.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:53 AM
Do the cops actually investigate before they drag a poor mother from her home? The cops do have to take these allegations seriously, however, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

If this terrified PC world wasn't the way it it, those children would not have known that a little smack was enough to get their mum locked up.

This reminds me of comedian Jeff Foxworthy's humorous take on this deplorable state of PC we are in.

Nowadays we have to give them a 'time out'. Yeh... in my day, my dad would take 'time outa' his day to whoop our ass.

I'm only 23... i still lived when it was legal to get spanked and at some point only a smack would set me back on the straight and narrow. Bring back the good old days.

Maybe a smack or two would stop Grade 3 children from trying to kill their teacher.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 7/4/2008 by SilentShadow]

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:17 AM
I don't know about this story. The woman obviously made a few mistakes raising her children. I think that she paints the picture a tad too "angelic" for me to believe it went down exactly as she is portraying it.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that the system is now broken. Children now have the power to cook up a story and get their parents locked up. I think that spanking your child should not get you locked up, but I also think that there are other ways of disciplining your child. If your 10 year old is repeatedly calling you a "f'ing cow", then whatever method of discipline you have been using for the last 10 years obviously hasn't been working.

I can't believe she has worked with children for 25 years, yet her own 10 year old calls her a f'ing cow and it doesn't sound like an isolated event.

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:23 AM
Hi guyz,

I just wanted to point out something here. SlientShadow makes a comment above, "Do the cops actually investigate before they drag a poor mother from her home?"

Being a copper myself and having to deal with situations like this on an almost daily basis I feel I need to comment. It seems on reading the origional article that Social Services approached police with their initial concerns. This being the case the origionating investigation started with them and they would have obtained the initial interviews from the two children. Their finding would have been handed over to the police who would then be duty bound to investigate. In answer to your next question, yes the police take all allegations extremely seriously. What would happen if they ignored such an allegation and it turned out to be true !!! People would be loosing their jobs I think !!!

Part of the investigative process is to obtain evidence through questioning to allow the suspect to give their account of events. Depending on the circumstances this can be done through either a voluntary interview or following arrest. I want to point out that arrest does not imply that you are guilty of an offence, it only means that the suspect is required to stay with police whilst the incident is being investigated, nothing more. I cant really comment on why police on this occasion utilised their power of arrest, but that is a matter for the arresting officer to justify.

My heart does go out to the mother in this story. I feel that she has (if the account is accurate) been truly wronged. But I would caution everybody reading the article that you are hearing it from only one perspective. We are not privy to what accounts were given to social services by her two children, which may be the reason for why the reaction from social serivces etc. was so strong.

All the best eveyone...

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by boyznblue999

Absolutely the cops have to treat this seriously. As a teacher i would hope any such incident i report is treated as such. Where my question on whether they investigate properly first was more to do with the way the case was handled.

The children were pulled out of the home for close to three days (by my calculations). Then the mother was arrested and taken into custody (in terrible conditions) for almost 2 days before even being questioned.

By the end of the ordeal almost 7 days her child is in a foster home with people who have not even passed the police checks yet before it was thrown out of court.

My comment was directed at police, whom it appears, jumped the gun on this case. There were better ways they could have handled it.

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by SilentShadow

A quick couple of points....

The children were pulled out of the house......

This would have been done by social services and not by the police. The police may have assisted social services but only in exceptional circumatnaces.

The mother was arrested and taken to custody (in terrible conditions) for almost 2 days before even being questioned.....

This is just not true. Whilst the fact of arrest (which I mentioned earlier and has to be justified by the arresting officers to the custody officer) is a mute point now, is not an indication of guilt. It is only a means to assisting the investigation. The issue surrounding 'terrible conditions' is just not true. Since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) the treatment of detainees in custody is strictly controlled. Although conditions are basic (it certainly aint a 4 star hotel) all cells must be clean and hygenic. A detainee must have access to 3 meals a day and sufficent rest. Do a search on PACE on google and you can get all the legeslation there.

The mother in the story states that the matress in the room was plastic and the pillow threadbare. Okay fair enough I can accept that, but she could always have asked for a replacement. Indeed if the toilet was not cleaned to a hygenic standard then she could request that it be cleaned for her. I doubt any custody staff would refuse to get that sorted. The issue surrounding only getting 4 pieces of tissue paper per go for the loo surrounds the fact that many detainees (and believe me we get some nasty people in custody) will try block the toilets up and cause a flood.

You say she was held for 2 days prior to interview. I can say that this would not happen, in fact it is contrart to PACE. The police have 24 hours to deal with the detainee, however in exceptional circumstances (which I would imagine this is not one) the police may apply for an extension. Sorry mate but I think you may be wrong with this one....

I cant comment on the behaviour of social services in this example. They have their own guidelines to operate by and it would be down to them where the children were placed whilst this investigation was ongoing.

I feel that it was not police who jumped the gun in this case but social services. The police have very very strict guidelines on how situations are handled and I believe that their hand was forced in this case.

One quick last point. The checks you call "police checks" are not done by the police. They are in fact done by the Criminal Records Beureau". They are actually CRB checks. The CRB requests details from police indices however the police themselves do not complete the check.

Hope this is of some help...

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by SilentShadow

The mother sounds like she's trying to give her kids everything, and
frustration over an unruly child got the best of her!

I was beaten nearly to death several times, by my Marine father, from
the late sixties, all the way to mid 80's. 1985 was the LAST time he
knocked me clean-out! It was unbearable! Concussions, brain lesions,
stitches, a broken collar bone, and an impacted tail-spine!

I still get migraines, (the kind that make you crawl & vomit), and when
i bend at a certain angle, my back gives out... So i have to say:


posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by FRIGHTENER

Whilst I agree with your sentiment Frightner and my heart truly goes out to you for what you have experienced, this is a slightly different scenario. This example is about reasonable chastisment of a child which as described in the article is one smack on the backside and the resultant actions by the police and social services based on what seems to be a story made up by the children to get back at their mother.

Personally (and not as a police officer) I feel that reasonable chastisment is fine, but as your example Frightner clearly demonstrates there are always people who take it further to levels which are clearly unacceptable.

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:32 AM
There is nothing wrong with using disipline on a child. I was spanked on the bottom as a kid, smacked in the mouth when I said something I shouldn't have, hell, even had soap put in my mouth on a few occasions, and I turned out just fine.

Full blown abuse is one thing, and that should never be tolerated, but disipline, in my opinon, is just fine and is something that kids these days really need.

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:56 AM
Thanks, boyznblue666 ., ; . er sorry, 999! just kidding!

No, really- thank you for your kind words, i appreciate it.

As a cop, you already know, that anyone who hits a child these days,
could possibly be diagnosed with psychosis, or at the very least, anger
management problems, and subject to arrest, and/or forcible detainment
for observation at a psychiatric hospital, or both.

And the right of Family Services to intervene.

Too bad the law didn't go into homes, back when ours was torn apart by
unspeakable violence, and horror; and screaming, and fighting, coulda
saved me alot of unnecessary pain!

But i've gotten past it kinda good, and recently showed forgiveness and
love to my father! And i'm grateful for my life, and family; here's my
example of the absolute worse-case scenario, of abuse:
My cousin, Bridget; stalked, abducted, and murdered

Maybe that boy, Guy, did cry wolf, and has no idea what abuse really is!

I guarantee you, if you had a young child, and he complained to you
about someone hitting him, you would drop everything to find out what
happened; No?

Hitting a child is violence. Violence causes trauma, and could lead to the
child growing up suffering from P.T.S.D.

[edit on 4/7/2008 by FRIGHTENER]

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:55 PM
No worries about the 666 thing....I'm not quite there just

Any ways, truly my heart does go out to yourself and anyone else subjected to abuse of whatever sort....there is no excuse for it.

I do think that we need to seperate the abuse you suffered to what is described in the articele sited here by the OP. The woman in the aritcle stated that she smaked her son once on the backside. The son then (if the article is to be believed) then made up a story to the authorities in conjunction with his brother stating that they were both subjected to physical and mental abuse....!!!

Now from my personal opinion, chastisment of children is fine if done in an appopriate and measured manner. Kicking seven bells out of a kid for whatever reason is just not accepatable regardless whatever planet your on and in that respect Frightner I'm with ya 100%. I think where my opinion and yours starts to differ (and we are all entitled to our opinions) is that I feel if a child gets seriously out of line then when all else seems to fail, a smack on the backside aint gonna set the stage for post traumatic stress in the future. I remember getting a few sharp visits from the smack fairy when I was younger, and in hind sight I think I needed it.

I think that when that chastisment gets out of hand then it becomes unacceptable.

Speaking as a police officer, I have been called to many situations where a youngster has called police stating they have been assaulted or abused by their parents / carers. In this role it is my duty to fully investigate the matter and ensure the safety of the child. However it can usually be determined pretty quickly if the level of abuse is as initially claimed. On the other hand sometimes it isnt very clear or there is a significant question over the safety of the kids, and in those circumstances additional resources and specialist services may need to be brought to bear.

What everyone needs to realise is that the person taking the initial report, be that social services or police or whoever, has the childs welfare to think about. They have a duty of care. If the childs story is serious enough then arresting the suspect may be warranted as is taking the child to a place of safety. Freightner, I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. There is a wider aspect to think about here, such as obtaining evidence such as forensics, which may necessitating scenes of crime assessing the scene or the persons clothes etc.

This is why the police act in the manner they do. Its not to annoy people, its to ensure that nothing is missed.

I'm glad to hear that your making amends with your past and looking to the future Freightner, I wish you all the best mate. Keep safe.

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by boyznblue999

BIG STAR, to you- boyznblue!

Thanks for your kind words, and for taking my joke about au6thor6it6ies,
with a level head. Glad you're not there yet- but you will be! just kidding!!

No, seriously, i say: Fair enough; you're correct, seperating the different
levels of smack vs beating makes you wise, and intelligent, kudos!

So happy to hear you say the children come first, when you show-up on
a scene, very important to me, as you can imagine. Consider yourself to
be wearing a medal on your chest, from me, when you do your duty well
for kids, ok?

You're right about the future- that's where it's at! And ya know, my father
is an extremely honorable Marine... worked hard to give me & my little
brothers everything he was denied; big house & yard, two cars, and
bikes, Scouting, trips; toys, you-know, he deserves the best from us.
He was no alckie, or druggie, or whore-monger,,, so i love the 'ol battle

keeping cool.

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 03:39 AM
Ok -- can't keep away from this one. I belive the issue of "not being allowed" to physically punish (spank... not beat) your kids is a large part of the problem with the youth who were subjected to this non-discipline. The ultimate punishment for these kids is not fully comprehending the gravity of negative consequences for negative actions. So, later in life, when a choice needs to be made betwen right and wrong, if the feeling of possible consequences is not in the back of ones mind from ones youth, then the wrong choice will most likely be based on "want" and not "need."

Since this garbage started, these youth have been nothing but coddled and given everything they think they deserve (please, generalizing here). Take examples of sports... trophys for 5th place finishes and worse? Little League with required number of innings or outs a child must play? I don't have kids and I'm sure there are plenty more examples, in and out of sports.

My final tie in addresses "yelling." I work with "troubled" youth. Leaders in the field and any guidelines do not want caretakers yelling at the youth. This is perfectly understood and agreed with by me, to an extent. Where I differ is this... those of you with kids know the frustration of having to direct a child to do something a certain way or the "right" way... REPEATEDLY. And no matter how many times you "appropriately" tell or ask the child to change the act or behavior, he will often do the same "wrong" thing the next day... and the next... etc. BUT, when you then YELL at the child... who in my case often complains of me yelling, to another staff member, saying he doesn't like it, etc... gee... that's the point isn't it? You do something you're not to be doing... and something happens that you do not like. Improper action/consequence. Which is now remembered the next time a child goes to do that "thing" again. So, guess what? He doesn't do it! Because he didn't like being yelled at! A perception of feared consequences for improper actions is part of what is needed in raising a youth to be a functional part of society, albeit a big part, imo. And that big part has been missing for quite some time.

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:23 AM
I have never understood what exactly the "rules" are when it comes to abuse reports to the appropriate authorities. I'm in Canada so we call it Children's Aid here (just so noone is confused).

I have two incidents in mind that stand out. The first, was involving my husband's sister and her ex. They had been separated for a few months, and truly, just to cause trouble he called CA on her, and made claims of physical abuse, not having food in the house, and basically, bad living conditions. Everyone that knows my sister in law knows this is so far from the truth, it hurts. Rather than investigating, they arrived at the house unannounced (police and CA), took my then 2 yr old niece out of the house and arrested my sister in law. AFTER my niece had been in someone else's care for a week, they finally investigated, found nothing wrong and gave her back.

The second situation, was when someone close to me made their own call to CA about a particular family. She had been agonizing for weeks over this decision and after discussing it with myself and another friend, decided to make the call. She had witnessed physical abuse, saw the horrible living conditions these kids were living in, and the mother that could care less. In this case, CA made a very polite phone call to her, SCHEDULED an appointment to come to her house a WEEK later to meet with her. Gave her plenty of time to stock the fridge, clean the house, wash her kids faces and put them in some clean clothes. Of course, CA did nothing, as they found nothing wrong when they did their SCHEDULED visit.

The third is another case close to me. (No, I don't as a rule surround myself with child abusers in case you're wondering! LOL I work for a daycare agency that has a majority of subsidized children under it's care. Not that low income families are, as a rule, dysfunctional, but after doing this for several years, I'll just say, I've seen it ALL.) In this case, it was a family within our daycare agency. The single parent was having a tough time keeping organized, buying groceries and keeping the house in livable conditions. CA this time came in unannounced, but then gave the parent one week to have the situation under control. The parent cleaned the house, filled the fridge, got their act together and all was well.

In these last two cases, the children were never removed from the home, and after a second visit, all was deemed fine and CA quietly disappeared from their lives as quickly as they'd come in.

Is there not some set of standards? Precedents these child agencies follow...or do they just pick strategies out of a hat at random??!! Three very similar cases, yet all treated three totally different ways. Maybe it's because of WHO made the inital call, I don't know, but it seems so shady and unorganized to me. There are people out there being wrongly accused, and people who ARE guilty being let off easy. This just pisses me off after dedicated a good portion of my life to caring for kids..


posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:26 AM
Rabbitchaser I couldn't agree more with you. I work in a large inner city area in the UK, which is very deprived. The youth (majority) I deal with on a regular basis have no concept of the consequences of their actions and are fuelled on a 'I WANT IT NOW' mentality.

Couldn't have put it better. Nice one

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Michelle129
I have never understood what exactly the "rules" are when it comes to abuse reports to the appropriate authorities. I'm in Canada so we call it Children's Aid here (just so noone is confused). ......

......Is there not some set of standards? Precedents these child agencies follow...or do they just pick strategies out of a hat at random??!! Three very similar cases, yet all treated three totally different ways. Maybe it's because of WHO made the inital call, I don't know, but it seems so shady and unorganized to me. There are people out there being wrongly accused, and people who ARE guilty being let off easy. This just pisses me off after dedicated a good portion of my life to caring for kids..


Michelle, really excellent storys. I see the same thing regularly over here with social serivces.

For everyones info., the CA or Social Services utilise the police when they fear they may have problems taking custody of the children. In that circumstance the police are there to 'prevent a breach of the peace', nothing more. If particular offences have been disclosed by the investigating officers then arresting specific individuals may be required but this must be justified on a case to case basis.

Officers can take vunerable children/or people into protective custody but only for a short period of time, and once in custody appopriate services must be sought quickly (social services/mental health). This is more the exception than the norm.

I can't speak for the CA/SS but to answer your question any authority presented with such a case can only act with the information it receives, so you may be right in saying "it may depend on WHO makes the call", or what is said during the call as to how the case is approached and then handled.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by boyznblue999]

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:11 PM
After a horrible situation I had where my daughter was having a temper tantrum in the yard and my fiance simply picked her up (and had to do so kind of aggressivly because she was struggling) and brought her in the house, and the neighbor called the cops saying he smacked her in the head...which he did not. I learned from the police officer that came to the house that it is perfectly legal to spank your child as long as it is on their bottom and it doesn't leave a mark.

I understand that the police have to take every complaint seriously and I am glad they do, but in many cases the Child Protection Agency is extremily incompitant. I knew a girl who was a child protection social worker and she said that she loves the fear she creates in the eyes of parents, which tells me they don't screen their employees enough. In Minnesota, the CPA claims their goal is to give counseling and make families better and that removing children from their homes is a last resort yet they seem to hire people who like the power trip they get from "striking fear in the eyes of parents".

Also let's be real here, many of the parents who truly ARE abusing their children are master manipulators and know how to beat any system.

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:02 PM
What is the difference between discipline and abuse? Discipline is for the benefit of the child and abuse is for the benefit of the abuser.

According to the assault and battery definition (in my state, anyway), you can hit another person for 3 things: 1) in defense of self, 2) in defense of another, and 3) in the discipline of your child.

breaking collar bones is definitely not in the best interest of the child. depriving them of video games or smacking them in the mouth for cursing you can be retaliatory but doesn't have to be presented as such.

If these kids don't learn the meaning of the word "no" at an early age, the consequences for learning it later become more severe. In a couple of years these teenagers will be getting a lot more than a smack in the mouth for their defiance. SWAT teams will be coming in for them. I hope they don't use their one phone call to ask their mom to bail them out.

top topics


log in