|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/19/2013 1:59:46 PM)
|
In my case, Social Services brought the charge of assulting a minor under that stupid 2003 law.
And yes, if he did any damage to anything, I was liable for the cost of reparation because he was still placed under my charge, together with his mother; so I was legally responsible for him.
I would have thought, in normal circumstances, I'd be arrested and prosecuted by the the police and dragged into court after questioning from the police at an official interview for assult.
Wasn't the case here.
I was taken from home, without cuffs (coz I complied), but instead of a police cell I was dragged straight to the courts under police guard and under caution.
Social Services were applying to have me removed for assulting a minor in my charge under the Physical Punishment of Children Act 2003. It wasn't a general assult charge but something very specific pertaining to a minor specifically under this law.
I got the actual physical assult charge dropped but I got copped for threatening to apply a physical chastisement on a child under my care and jurisdiction (and under a court order).
The fact that step-son had already been arrested many times leading up to this incident, I was very nicely awarded a "Bound Over" caution suspended for two years just for the threat of violence.
Thats why I argued about stats being capped for 5 reports as being BS - the police brought up all of step-son's previous reports no matter how small they were.
Once he was 18 and no longer bound by the court order, I officially gave him written marching orders to leave my home. Yes, an eviction notice.
So no, you aren't actually allowed to physically chastise a child, either in your care or even if it's your own. You would need to convince a judge that it wasn't physical.
Whether it leaves any bruise or permanent mark didn't seem to come into it.
I also found a prelude to the 2003 law -
"On 11 September 2001, the Office of Law Reform published a
Consultation Paper entitled “Physical Punishment in the Home −
Thinking about the Issues, Looking at the Evidence”.
The aim of the Paper was to stimulate debate and elicit views with regard
to the physical punishment of children. The need for the debate was
prompted, in part, by the case of A -v- UK1, which came before the
European Court of Human Rights in 1998, and the follow up case of R-v-
H 2, which came before the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in
2001.
............
The case was taken to the European Court, which held that the UK had
contravened Article 3 of the ECHR by failing to provide A with adequate
protection from inhuman and degrading treatment."
Source: http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/punishmentofchildrenresponses.pdf
It would seem that Article 3 of the ECHR is the lynchpin of that law and it's implementation.
|
|
|
|
