Smacking Ban – Protecting Kids or Criminalizing Parents? What Do You Think?

[Scoobychick]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to start a discussion about the smacking ban and whether it’s truly helping children—or just making parenting even harder.

I completely support protecting children from harm, but I believe this law is misguided and potentially damaging to families. Instead of tackling real abuse and neglect, the government has criminalized responsible parents who use occasional smacking as discipline.

🔹 Are we focusing on the wrong problem?
🔹 Should the government be prioritizing real child protection failures instead?
🔹 Does this law take away too much parental authority?

Many parents already struggle to set boundaries, especially with the growing influence of social media and peer pressure. Now, with this law, some fear that even light discipline could lead to social services intervention. Meanwhile, children in truly abusive situations continue to fall through the cracks because agencies are overwhelmed or ineffective.

💬 What do you think? Share your thoughts below!
📊 Vote in the poll too! 👇

Trying to talk to OP is like talking to a brick wall.

@Scoobychick common assault doesn't have to leave a mark. It's still considered an assault.

Can you comment on that?

Op are you ok if someone hits you and it doesn't leave a mark?

There are plenty of behaviour control strategies available to parents other than drawing pictures and discussions. If a parent really can't think of any alternative other than smacking, they seriously need to consider their fitness to have children..

Instead of criminalizing parents for minor disciplinary actions, we should be demanding accountability from government agencies that repeatedly fail to protect vulnerable children.

I really don't understand why you claim these are mutually exclusive, OP. Is there any reason why we can't have both?

If adults need to be violent in order to set boundaries with their children, then they NEED outside help.

I have 2 DC, never smacked them, never needed to. Beating children should be banned!*

*I can't believe I had to say that on a parenting site in the 21st century

I'll focus on the idea that there can be a time and place for a smack.

Too many ifs in your post for me, @Nighttimenope. Even if there were a situation where a smack is acceptable (and I believe research shows this is not the case), parents who smack don’t go through a mental checklist before they do it.

I particularly love the argument that it’s good for ‘some’ kids. Who judges who these kids are? I can tell you that it absolutely was not right for me.

No law will stop all abuse. However, a full ban will deter some offenders. It will prevent reasonable chastisement being used as a defence. It will set down a marker that as a society we don’t do this - which as I’ve said upthread most certainly will make some parents stop and think. Allowing individual parents to reach woolly judgements on who it’s ok to smack, how much, how hard and under what circumstances because ‘sometimes it’s justified’ leaves children vulnerable.

(Not one of the occasions I remember being smacked relates to running into the road, the classic example given to justify why parents must be allowed to hit their kids!)

@Scoobychick why do you want people to be able to smack their children? What is the benefit?

You are deliberately exaggerating. For the sort of offence you are talking about, it is highly likely that the first responses would be official warnings, only progressing to actual charges if the parents persist - in which case they probably need something more effective to make them take the law seriously. Care proceedings won't be contemplated unless children are demonstrably at risk.

The introduction of a smacking ban in England aims to protect children by eliminating physical punishment. However, concerns have been raised that such a ban could strain already overburdened child protection services. Existing laws, such as the Children Act 2004, already prohibit physical punishment that causes actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, or child cruelty.

Implementing a comprehensive ban may lead to an increase in reported cases, potentially overwhelming social services and diverting attention from more severe instances of child abuse. Critics argue that while the intention behind the ban is to protect children, it might inadvertently place additional stress on already strained services without effectively deterring those who are committed to abusive behaviors.

It's essential to balance the enforcement of such a ban with adequate resources and support for child protection agencies to ensure that all reports are handled effectively without compromising the welfare of children in more critical situations.

My parents used to smack us. From a very young age it was obvious to us that it was not intended as a punishment or a warning, but because they were taking out their temper on us. We therefore lost respect for them and that remained the case for the rest of their lives.

It should be banned. Nobody needs to hit their child in order to control them. It's fucked up.

It's essential to balance the enforcement of such a ban with adequate resources and support for child protection agencies to ensure that all reports are handled effectively without compromising the welfare of children in more critical situations.

Exactly. The answer is to give social services and the police adequate resources, not to continue to allow parents to hit their children. I have no problem with that. Do you, OP?

OP you’ve made the point about overwhelmed services several times. I don’t agree with this as a reason.

If you can't manage your child's behaviour without physically assaulting them, then you need to work on your parenting skills.

It is incredibly sad that any parent would argue for the right to hurt their child.

There is zero point debating with OP. All their responses have a bit of weird
ChatGPT vibe to them. There is no addressing of specific questions or counter arguments to their likely AI generated opinions either because they are being deliberately obtuse or they're a bit too dim to successfully argue their point of view.

It is totally ridiculous that you think not smacking = ineffective parenting. What a patronising post. Yes, of course my children misbehave and when they do, I make it clear that there are consequences. But those consequences aren’t violent.

How about you don't overwhelm social services or the police and justice system by not breaking the law? Or is beating your children something you just can't help @Scoobychick?

Agree. The op hasn't answered if they'd be ok being hit if no mark left.

Why on Earth are children the only ones that can be.

They are smaller and can't leave.

Lots of folk comparing it to hitting wives, elderly people ‘is there any other example where we treat children differently to adults?’ Was mentioned.
Of course there is. For a start, kids have to learn to obey. If you don’t believe that, I’m telling you, your kids are not as good as you think.
if you do believe that, wives and elderly people are immediately in a different category. They are not under your authority.
We treat kids differently in a myriad of ways. The idea that their behaviour needs managed at all is intrinsically different. Grounding them, withholding privileges of any kind, controlling their money, literally any boundary… would be abuse to another adult. Of course children are different.
I don’t agree that a smack is cruel compared to a grounding, a withholding of a privelege, a chore etc. I’m not saying it’s the best thing to do, but it sometimes is.
Consider a child taking off their seatbelt in the car. Mum will perhaps go home and purchase a device to prevent this, but in the moment of the car journey she’s at the side of the motorway and kid is laughing and not taking warnings seriously. Mum needs to get child home safely. Mum warns, then mum smacks the child and the child complies. That is a crime? Insane. Because allowing the child to not have the seatbelt on is a crime, and one that actually has severe risks. Any country that has a law that penalises that parent has lost the wood for the trees.

So if smacking is ok as long as it doesn't leave a mark, would this be seen as an acceptable form of discipline in schools?

How about with young people with learning disabilities and complex needs and challenging behaviour?

What about a young person with learning disabilities who has no sense of danger?... if they run into the road... a light smack... go to touch a kettle... another light smack... run off in a crowd... another light smack etc.

How about people who suffer dementia and have challenging behaviour or little sense of danger as a result?

How young do you go?
Babies??
How often??
Every day? Several times a day??
Do you give a warning??
Ust as a deterrent? ...'if you do this, I will smack you'
Do you talk it through afterwards?
Who decides what level of behaviour deserves a smack??
What if you accidentally bruise the child... do you explain when you drop them off at school or nursery (lots have a policy where you let them know about any injuries or marks in case it happened at the setting)
...'oh by the way, little Bob has a bruise on his leg, because I smacked him a bit too hard..oopsie!' Or would you just say, "oh by the way, little Bob fell and bumped his leg"
If you'd tell the lie, why?
It's only a little smack after all.

So if I am trying to teach my child with learning disabilities not to put themselves in danger (crossing the road, seat belt, in the kitchen) do you think a light smack everytime they did something that could put them in danger, is acceptable?

I totally support banning smacking.

I was a smacked child. My mum was the smacker. Smacked with a hard sole slipper on the legs. Smacked across the face. Not a one off - regularly, and for the smallest of things.

Apparently this was ok, because everyone did it in the 70’s & 80’s and it was nothing worse than my parents had endured themselves (getting beaten with belts at school).

I still hate my mother for it (I’m in my 50’s now) and I hate the fact she’s never recognised it was wrong & abuse. She did it as she was angry and couldn’t control her emotions. Bullying a child through aggression is wrong.

For a start, kids have to learn to obey. If you don’t believe that, I’m telling you, your kids are not as good as you think.

No, they have to learn how to behave properly and adjust their behaviour depending on the situation , not obey. There's a fundamental difference .

"Children have to learn how to obey"

So that makes snacking okay?

Being smacked as a child, taught me to be fearful, not to obey.

I've never smacked my children, I've always treated them with respect. In turn they give me respect. They are never in trouble, and behave well at school. When they were younger they had the occasional "time out" or punishments as described by PPs such as "if you don't hold my hand and run away when we are out we will go home and won't go to the park" etc.

For a start, kids have to learn to obey. If you don’t believe that, I’m telling you, your kids are not as good as you think.

You are wrong. My kids are as good as I think. Are they perfect? No. Neither am I. Will they make mistakes? Yes. And I will too. Children do not need to learn to obey. They need to learn how to be a decent, fully functioning adult in society, to treat themselves and others with respect. Part of being a parent, and of being said decent functioning part of society, is to learn from your mistakes and to grow from them. I help my children learn and grow by supporting them when they make mistakes and respectfully correcting them, not by whacking them into compliance. I model this by taking accountability for my own mistakes especially within the context of my own parenting. Children model what they see and experience.