Children and the law - too much ambiguity! DISCUSS

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

Following on from oodles of other threads it seems to me that the rights and wrongs of parenting are really down to opinions and not much else. I mentioned in another thread that when you have children, there are plenty leaflets and pamphlets of pure marketing handed out at the hospital but precious little on parenting according to the law.

Is it legal or not to smack children?
If so is there an age limit?
Is it OK to leave children in the car?
If so then is there an age limit?
What is neglect? What is the definition of a hazard?
When to allow to walk to school?

Can you see my point?
It's all just difference of opinions so why is there nothing around which clears up the confusion? It may clear up so many needless arguments based on differences of opinion and nothing else!

[SueBaroo]

Fair enough. The smacking law differs between Scotland and England'n'Wales, I think, no smacking under threes in Scotland, so you'd have to take that into account.

I don't think leaflets talking about current law would make much odds, though, because for some of these issues, people are actively campaigning for a change in the law anyway, so it does all come back to opinion in the end.

[Ladymuck]

Why do you need a law on many of these things? One person's circumstances aren't identical to someone elses. Personally I think that the law (and the Government in forming the law) should interfere with our lives to the least extent possible. Why on earth would I want to live in a country which told me when I could or could not leave my children in the car. People ask question about this because they are interested in the same way that they ask questions about weaning or about schools. We form different conclusions about a whole range of issues, but that makes life richer.

[pointydog]

There's a very clear law on smacking - is that just Scotland?

I don't think a law on walking to school woud be practical.

I think as these sorts of decisions are taken out of people's hands, we just end up with a worsening blame culture where personal judgements are not allowed and there is no such thing as an accident any more.

[SueBaroo]

yep. Laws do reek of prescribing all human behaviour.

pd, the law is fairly clear in England 'n' Wales too, it just isn't that smacking is illegal as far as I'm aware.

[pointydog]

yeah not illegal, just no smacking that leaves mark, not on head and not with object.

[SueBaroo]

clear as mud, really, lol.

[Greensleeves]

It is a bit nebulous though, because legally smacking does constitute an assault - it's just that there is a "statutory defence" of reasonable chastisement as long as there is no mark. If someone decided to report you for smacknig there would be a case to answer, although in most cases the reasonable chastisement thing would be a successful defence.

[SueBaroo]

Ah, that's cleared that up then

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

I take it back. There is (in Scotland anyway) a leaflet titled "children, physical punishment and the law", a guide for parents. Published in October 2003 it is widely available and distributed throughtout at libraries, health centres, nurseries and to the parents of all primary school children.

I must be blind as I have never seen this. Why just wait until school before telling parents? Having now read this leaflet I can honestly say I am none the wiser. All it seems to be clear about is that you must not:
shake
hit on the head
use an implement
It is still ambiguous about age.

I live in oblvivion

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

And I can't spell

[SueBaroo]

oblvivion is nice this time of year, I hear.

That is odd, though. I was under the distinct impression that you couldn't smack under 3 in Scotland. It would make more sense to have the leaflets targetted at parents with children that age, surely? Not 'Primary School Children' who all tend to be a wee bit above 3...

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

I know, I agree totally with you SueBaroo. I'm still trying to find out where it states "under 3" I'm sure I've read on other threads that it is "under 2".

[SueBaroo]

for the first time, is glad she doesne live in Scotland

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

Found this .... it was part of the consultation prior to bringing in the new legislation.
Understanding of and attitudes towards the law

"Perhaps the most striking fact about public awareness and understanding of the current debates ? apart from the sheer degree of confusion that recent media coverage has engendered ? is that more than half of parents in Scotland believe it already to be illegal to smack either a child of any age or a child below a particular age. There was little evidence, however, that this belief had impacted on their behaviour.

When the current legislative position and the proposed changes were explained, around a half of parents indicated that they would support a ban on smacking if limited to children aged two and under. Whilst there was some evidence that the introduction of the legislation might reinforce an existing reluctance on the part of parents to smack their children in public places, most parents who currently smack indicated that they would continue to do so in their own homes if they thought it appropriate.

There was, however, much wider support for the other aspects of the legislation ? relating to shaking, hitting around the face or head or use of an implement. Parents are not only much less likely to use such methods, they see them much more clearly as ?abusive?. As long as a majority of parents see smacking as part of the standard repertoire of ?normal? or non-abusive parenting, it is unlikely that any proposals that draw on themes of prohibition, policing and enforcement will find widespread support. "

[SueBaroo]

so, people think it's inappropriate to smack under 2, but it's not the law in Scotland? Or have I misunderstood that?

boggle

[VoluptuaGoodshag]

I don't think there is any age limit in Scotland from what I can gather. Just no shaking, using an implement or hitting on the head. I've not even started on England and Wales. I'm still confused about Scotland and I live here.

BTW, I'm not doing this so I can merrily smack my kids and then tell everyone that it's OK I'm not breaking the law . I'm just aghast that something so important has so much confusion surrounding it and despite having children after 2003, I never received any info on the new law.

[SueBaroo]

Well, I've got nothing against smacking, personally, but it would be helpful all round if the law wasn't a fog of confusion...

[CorrieDale]

Surely we don't want everything to be set in stone? Parents should, unless there is a good reason not to, be treated like intelligent people who can carry out their own risk assessment concerning the safety of their own children. After all, my friend's daughter will be walking to school on her own sooner than my son, simply because my friend lives next door to the school, and I'm nearly 1/2 a mile away. I'd hardly want the govt, or anybody else, to say 'all children walk to school on their own at age 11 and not a minute before'. That's why there no law for when you can leave children on their own - each parent, child and situation is different and the risk is different every time.

[pointydog]

I think the original proposal was to do with no smacking at all of under 3s but that wasn't agreed, it was all redrafted hence confusion.

Applies to all ages re marks, head, implements. Fairly clear I think.

[SueBaroo]

So the age limit thing is just hearsay, not law? OK, got that sorted.

I don't think the marks thing is that clear to be honest. I recall at the time there was quite a discussion about what that actually meant when it came to skin colours other than white. And even on white skin - do we mean great big bruises, a bit of redness etc.?

See, I don't the recent law did anything to remove the apparent confusion with the 'reasonable chastisement' defense, because you now just have another set of legal definitions to play monkey games with.

[adath]

What corriedale said.

I used to look after my ex's 3 children on a regular basis all a year apart in age and all had varying degrees of sense; there are things that you could trust the middle and youngest child to do way before the oldest.
It would be far to difficult to put legal age limits on so many of these things. I am thankful that at present (things are always changing) we live in a country where we as parents are trusted to be intelligent enough to make these decisions for ourselves, far too many things to do with our children are already being taken out of our hands as soon as we hand them over to the education system but that is a whole other thread. I would be disgusted it the government then decided to tell us what age we can allow our own children to walk to school by themselves.

[Greensleeves]

"do we mean great big bruises, a bit of redness etc?"

What an awful thing to be discussing It just brings it home that really, some people just want to be allowed to hit people smaller than themselves without being held accountable. Repugnant, frankly.

[SueBaroo]

Not at all Greensleeves, it's more about how on earth you police something like that. My dc have bruises up and down their legs because they throw themselves about with gay abandon. Nothing to do with being smacked.

[SueBaroo]

And anyway, the point being - the law says that smacking is allowed as long as it doesn't leave an unspecified mark. Well, anyone who has smacked knows that it's not at all unusual for a smack to leave a small red mark for a few minutes.
If that is the mark that's meant, then that would in practice mean that smacking is illegal - so why not have that as the law? It's this ambiguity that I think we're talking about.