We need to make it illegal to hit children

[Poetrypatty]

AIBU to think this should be done ASAP. I'm so annoyed that in our country it's still legal. It's not legal to hit adults. It just seems plain wrong to me.

@Toddlerteaplease

It will not solve anything at all.

Responses and attitudes like this is why we haven’t made much progress.

Making it illegal is a step towards ending violence towards children.

@IncompleteSenten

Are people actually arguing that because some people still do illegal things, there should be no laws?

Yeah they are, how utterly ridiculous and frustrating

@Pumperthepumper

**It’s not to stop child abuse. It’s to clear up the grey area of ‘justifiable assault.

I'm not really convinced there is a grey area. I'm not in UK, but here reasonable chastisement means open hand, below the neck, no mark, no weapon. It's no more grey than any area of law. If it doesn't stop child abuse I'm not sure how criminalising a parent for slapping a four old for escaping from a carseat in the motorway is going to achieve anything. The harm done to the family by fining the parent seems disproportionate to the harm done to the child.

And let's not by coy, it's overwhelmingly low ses parents who'll feel the brunt of this law.

[quote Grayskelly]@Pumperthepumper

**It’s not to stop child abuse. It’s to clear up the grey area of ‘justifiable assault.

I'm not really convinced there is a grey area. I'm not in UK, but here reasonable chastisement means open hand, below the neck, no mark, no weapon. It's no more grey than any area of law. If it doesn't stop child abuse I'm not sure how criminalising a parent for slapping a four old for escaping from a carseat in the motorway is going to achieve anything. The harm done to the family by fining the parent seems disproportionate to the harm done to the child.

And let's not by coy, it's overwhelmingly low ses parents who'll feel the brunt of this law.[/quote]
Well, these is: you choose to hit your kid or you don’t. And now hitting your kid is illegal. So you won’t.

Yes it should be illegal. Its removed the 'grey area' and will hopefully make parents think a bit more about their childs feelings before raising their hand to them.

No it wont stop child abuse but it will send a clear message that hitting a child is unacceptable. I like to think of it this way, when my OH pisses me off do I hit him? The answer is no, so why would I do that to my child?

@gsaoej

I think people are being a little unfair to you but I understand where coming from.

I remember once grabbing my pre-school hard by the arm when a car came whizzing by at drop off and said child gave me a good telling off!!! I apologised and explained the situation but it was a case of that or being run over. I also explained the situation to nursery staff and my husband as wanted to be as transparent as possible. It probably went on a file note somewhere (which I have no objection to). I was very upset by hurting my child but the nursery staff were very supportive.

It’s the same if a child is choking you would hurt them to stop it. I remember in a child first aid class we were told we were all being too gentle (pretend babies!!!) if your child was in physical danger - your actions are being done for their best interests.

Nevertheless, in my mind smacking should be illegal as it is not an appropriate form of parenting. I was smacked as a child and it just made me feel embarrassed and upset.

The law wouldn’t be aimed at anyone pursuing a one off action by a loving parent to prevent a serious catastrophe but it would create a higher parenting standard people can aspire to be and stop it being used as a form of discipline.

I like to think of it this way, when my OH pisses me off do I hit him? The answer is no, so why would I do that to my child?

Exactly

[quote Grayskelly]@Pumperthepumper

**It’s not to stop child abuse. It’s to clear up the grey area of ‘justifiable assault.

I'm not really convinced there is a grey area. I'm not in UK, but here reasonable chastisement means open hand, below the neck, no mark, no weapon. It's no more grey than any area of law. If it doesn't stop child abuse I'm not sure how criminalising a parent for slapping a four old for escaping from a carseat in the motorway is going to achieve anything. The harm done to the family by fining the parent seems disproportionate to the harm done to the child.

And let's not by coy, it's overwhelmingly low ses parents who'll feel the brunt of this law.[/quote]
What point are you trying to make? That it’s ok to slap a pre-school aged child below the neck as long as they’re messing about in the car?

Why is it fine to slap their arm/chest/back but not their face? Is it still ok to slap them if it’s not on the motorway but a side street?

That’s the problem, it allows for excuses. Oh yes I did slap him but xyz had happened and it was only a slap on the back not his face and blah blah blah. You shouldn’t be slapping a child at all then you won’t need to try and justify it.

If my partner was about to unwittingly do something dangerous, I wouldn't slap him to give him "a short, sharp shock" to stop him doing it. Grabbing a child's arm and potentially hurting them in the process, if they're about to walk in front of a car for example, is different - it's unintentional and done to stop them coming to greater harm.
Hitting them in any capacity to stop them doing something dangerous is more teaching them not to do it by either remembering the shock of being hit when they did, or fearing being hit if they do it again.

@hangrylady

I agree. But if you think this will stop abusive parents you are deluded. Do you think these people give a shit about the law? Oh I was going to hit my child but I'd better not, it's illegal. Please

By that logic, nothing should be illegal because people will always break the law so why bother?

I agree OP. It would not end abuse but it would make it easier to bring charges against violent parents.

^^
Or just to intervene in the first place. If x says he was hit, you don’t have to get into a murky world of “how hard was it, was it reasonable, did it leave a mark” etc. It’s illegal from the get go.

[quote Grayskelly]@Pumperthepumper

**It’s not to stop child abuse. It’s to clear up the grey area of ‘justifiable assault.

I'm not really convinced there is a grey area. I'm not in UK, but here reasonable chastisement means open hand, below the neck, no mark, no weapon. It's no more grey than any area of law. If it doesn't stop child abuse I'm not sure how criminalising a parent for slapping a four old for escaping from a carseat in the motorway is going to achieve anything. The harm done to the family by fining the parent seems disproportionate to the harm done to the child.

And let's not by coy, it's overwhelmingly low ses parents who'll feel the brunt of this law.[/quote]
There is a grey area of "reasonable chastisement" though.
What each person defines as "reasonable" is subjective. Nit leaving a mark- subjective. What if it leaves a mark that fades in seconds? What's the difference between smacking a leg and smacking a face, really?
Removing the subjective makes it much harder to defend the action and justify.

@5keletor

If my partner was about to unwittingly do something dangerous, I wouldn't slap him to give him "a short, sharp shock" to stop him doing it. Grabbing a child's arm and potentially hurting them in the process, if they're about to walk in front of a car for example, is different - it's unintentional and done to stop them coming to greater harm. Hitting them in any capacity to stop them doing something dangerous is more teaching them not to do it by either remembering the shock of being hit when they did, or fearing being hit if they do it again.

Agree. I think most people would instantly grab and drag back an adult about to walk in front of a car, as well. Totally different situation and very appropriate response.

Agree. You can't smack an adult. No one should be able to smack a child.

Isnt the difficulty around situations like:

• where an adult restrains a child to prevent them hurting themselves or others
• where someone "hits" in a context where its clearly a medical emergency and entirely appropriate (tapping back to help coughing mucous)

As a parent I also have had situations where I've had to physically "manhandle" a misbehaving child to get them dressed for school, or pin down a toddler to administer medicine. I'm sure a young child's recollection of these could be interpreted with a lot of confusion.

It’s not “illegal” but you still get in trouble for it so isn’t that the same thing anyway? I’ve known of people to get reported to ss for hitting their kids so if their kid tells a teacher their parent hit them they get reported to ss so I never really get how it’s not illegal then? You get reported to ss so it’s obviously not seen as “ok” like people think?

I thought it was illegal? There was certainly talk of a law a few years back. Can't remember what happened.

At least there was some arguing about it having a line between ok and not ok.

As others have said laws send a very strong social message about our overall values.

Plus plus with violence against children. All too often there's a feeling still about not interfering, is it for certain SS involvement etc is a big deal for families what if not that bad? Could have been a one off. Don't snitch.

Ideally people would always act. Even if not sure.

In practice it's well known people don't. And across a load of things.

This would mean if criminal imo-

People more likely to report as more concrete, against the law.
Police reports have to be logged, recorded, investigated (in theory). Not sure police would be best by themselves would need to be SS with police in background or something. Anyway that's an aside. I believe it would encourage reporting of incidents. Which would be a good result.

Children's act 2004 in included-

'58Reasonable punishment
(1)In relation to any offence specified in subsection (2), battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);
(b)an offence under section 47 of that Act (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);
(c)an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under 16).
(3)Battery of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) “actual bodily harm” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
(5)In section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, omit subsection (7).'

I work in Special Ed, with children and young people who have highly challenging behaviour. Our training includes restraint as sadly it is sometimes necessary. But as a last resort. Always last resort.... ie if a child is about to run into the road into traffic, then rugby tackling them to the ground is preventing the greater harm from occuring.
That would be preferable to the child being squished.
Hitting them because they were not complying (with a car seat or any other request) would not be ok, no matter what.
I am 54 and was never hit. I didn't hit my children and I am sure as hell not going to hit my grandchild. I'm not allowed to hit my husband or anyone else I know, so why should I be allowed to hit a child?

We all know it won't stop abusers but it send s a clear message!

It IS illegal to hit your children. It's not full stop no. There are various definitions in other acts (that I haven't read).

I saw all the posts saying not illegal to hit children full stop and was sure that couldn't be right.

What might actually help, I think

Is one of those public info initiatives. TV, internet main UK sites, posters in street etc. News coverage. Like they've done with things like they've done with things in past eg sex offences, heroin, drink driving etc.

Something like-

1. Signs. I mean I'm not expert so won't get right but I dunno things like maybe

• Hearing adult/s shouting at child/ren and especially if insults etc at child. (Would need to have way to say not one off/ over in a sec etc as over-reporting one off lost temper over in s sec apologise cuddle would be a problem for SS and maybe other issues dunno).

• Often bruised injured more than usual amount of child bruising / or in unusual places ie not knees etc (?)

• See adults a lot but hardly ever child

• Child seems to be getting thinner, looks unwell, very quiet.

I mean I don't know that's examples prob not good ones.

Anyway. Campaign with dramatised examples of when to be concerned.
Assurance that won't know who v reported

Safe lives stop suffering type message.

And urge to listen to your instinctive concern and act. One call could save life.

That sort of thing.

Thing is in this case a report WAS made. SS involved with family. Visited a bit before murder and said no safeguarding issues.

I do feel for SS because 1 million helped etc one child killed and the one (for natural obvious reasons) means they are seen as massive failure.

Not saying they shouldn't apologise if missed something, investigate, report, improve etc. Of course they should a child known to them has been killed. And if the SW did not follow procedure, did not do their job properly etc then they need to go and SS need to look into how not noticed they were rubbish.

They may have saved 100s is never in the picture though iyswim.

Must be such s difficult stressful job.

Definitely!
I can’t believe anyone would want to hurt or even threaten to hurt a child anyway, but it happens and is swept under the carpet as discipline. It’s not. It’s disgusting. I was hit as a child, not excessively, but it did absolutely nothing other than make me distrust my parents. I’d never want my children to feel like I did. My oldest two are 15 and 16 now, so I’m sure if I did suddenly have a swipe at them, they’d be able to floor me or run faster than me anyway. But I look at my 20 month old and know her little friends get smacks as “discipline” because their parents are of the mind of “it did me no harm”. It breaks my heart. They’re tiny. We’re supposed to teach them the difference between right and wrong, not bash them. It’s not right.
If this law protects even one child, one who’d be able to speak up in class and say sad hit me or mum smacked my sister etc, then it’s great.
Imagine getting a snack at work as an adult if you fuck up! Just no!

I thought it was illegal years ago. Who in their right minds would hit their child? 😢

@CheeseMmmm

Thing is in this case a report WAS made. SS involved with family. Visited a bit before murder and said no safeguarding issues.

I do feel for SS because 1 million helped etc one child killed and the one (for natural obvious reasons) means they are seen as massive failure.

Not saying they shouldn't apologise if missed something, investigate, report, improve etc. Of course they should a child known to them has been killed. And if the SW did not follow procedure, did not do their job properly etc then they need to go and SS need to look into how not noticed they were rubbish.

They may have saved 100s is never in the picture though iyswim.

Must be such s difficult stressful job.

Quite a lot of the worst child abuse cases (resulting in death) that have been reported in the media had social work and other agencies involved. Victoria Climbié. Baby P. Arthur. All were seen by social workers, hospital staff etc, sometimes within days of death. So where is it going wrong? Ultimate fault of course with the "parents" or guardians who abused the child, but these professionals have a role to play as well. Agree, not a job I would want to do at all.