Family banned from family home after smaking 3yo son

[Hulababy]

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4080293.stm\Did you see this?}

Saw it as headline on a couple of tabloids, but not read it all yet.

Thought it might make an interesting debate for Mumsnet! What do you think?

I saw another report on this which said the bloke had previous for violent offences, which is why the six month ban was in force. Also, that he threatened the policeman who challenged him. I don't know whether it's true though.

I thought \link{http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=9&threadid=47952&rnd=21416724834473477\this thread} was about this earlier, but I was wrong!

It seems really harsh to me, especially if he smacked him because of his running in front of a car. Fear does amazing things to us. If there was no other incident at home (ie the smack was the only reason for banning him and there was no proof or reason to believe the child was in danger at home) then I think that it was excessive. He is right to claim that his family were punished as well.

What I read said he hit the child so hard his feet left the floor, so a bit OTT, but the 6 month ban could hardly have been justified - when he went back his baby daughter didn't know who he was - where's the sense in that?

I saw this too and although I don't agree with smacking I was horrified that the child was deprived of a father for 6 months at such a young age. Especially for one smack.

The ban from the home was because he has a string of convictions for assault and weapons offences. He also threatened the police officer involved.

Not quite a poster child for parents' rights IMO.

I agree with Marialuisa, you get the feeling this 'one smack' was the tip of the iceberg. There is much more to this story than that. He sounds a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Even though he sounds like a nasty piece of work, surely banning him from his home is still OTT. If the ban is because of other offences then it's quite wrong. He should be punished for those and the smacking of his child shouldn't be the excuse. I'm not saying that I think he is parent of the year, just that the two things shouldn't be confused. If he abuses his kids then fair enough, ban him from his home. Don't ban him from his home because of firearm offences or violent acts elsewhere. When people are waiting to go to trial because of murder, burgulary etc, they don't get banned from their homes. That's what I think anyway.

There does appear to be more to this than meets the eye. We don't know the full context of this case or much information about the family. And it's so easy to make quick judgements when we don't have all the facts. One of GS's social workers actually suggested that removing him from his parents care was "...A bit OTT for a few bruises...". She didn't think the history of previous bruising, the (probable) chest fracture, or his fathers history of violent behaviour were relevant!!!!.

Interview in the Mail today...apparently he didn't live at the house anyway, he has his own flat, and had been chucked out for having an affair. He has a shockingly violent temper, numerous arrests and yes, I think that if a man is seen hitting a toddler so hard he is literally knocked off his feet and sent shooting across the floor, plus has a history of violent assaults I think banning him from contact is not at all OTT.

Couldn't agree more...well said.

the story seems a bit confused - has he previously been violent? if he has, its a different discussion - but on the face of it this is an astonishing sentence and one that, I am sure, has done more damage than the smack the child received.