• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Abuse not love or discipline

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Do these players not have pensions from which CS/alimony could be drawn? Cars /other property that could be sold (via court order) to compensate the victim(s)?
 


torimac

Member
Do these players not have pensions from which CS/alimony could be drawn? Cars /other property that could be sold (via court order) to compensate the victim(s)?
Even if they do, it is hard enough to collect such funds from Joe or Jane Smith, let alone a famous football player not (until now?) held accountable for their actions. How many of us have had issues collecting arrears when the other parent is working, their location is known and events are being handled by a state agency? Correct me if I am wrong, but short of submitting medical bills for payment, there seem to be limited options for victim compensation in family court. And criminal courts seem to focus only on jail time.

Getting a court order to sell property is very time consuming and while that may help pay for the four year old's college (hopefully in time), it will not help the here and now. I keep hoping to collect some of the back child support in order to pay for my child's college; I have written off the cost of therapy that was needed after the divorce.
 

davew128

Senior Member
From a moral and social standpoint, I agree with you. From a strictly legal perspective, it doesn't work that way. Self defense as a legal defense usually only kicks in when you can reasonably believe that you're in immediate danger of grievous injury.
Well THAT'S entirely untrue. Self defense occurs against battery as well as assault. Unwanted touching allows for self defense as well as the fear of imminent harm, and the idea that you're not allowed to protect yourself from unwanted touching is absurd on its face.
 

davew128

Senior Member
Do these players not have pensions from which CS/alimony could be drawn?
Pensions are exempt assets under ERISA. While you could get a QDRO to split the pension pursuant to a divorce, it can't be attached as an asset for support purposes.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
Well THAT'S entirely untrue. Self defense occurs against battery as well as assault. Unwanted touching allows for self defense as well as the fear of imminent harm, and the idea that you're not allowed to protect yourself from unwanted touching is absurd on its face.
Sec. 1.3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches an individual who:
(1) is or was a spouse of the other person;
(2) is or was living as if a spouse of the other person as provided in subsection (c); or
(3) has a child in common with the other person;
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that results in bodily injury to the person described in subdivision (1), (2), or (3) commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.
To quote just one law. No self defense. You touch them, you go to jail. Easy peasy. Absurd? Sometimes. But it is.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The concept of REASONABLE force also applies to athletes and victims claiming self defense. A mad, drunk woman pushing you doesn't deserve to be KO'd.

Quite frankly, the way I was raised, I'd have either taken it or simply grabbed her to keep her from striking me. I would never once have remotely considered the option of popping her like Rice did. Dollars to donuts, that was not the first time he'd been so physical with her ... probably wasn't the last, either.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Let's look to second order here. What is that child's life going to be with a productive dad in the picture as opposed to an essentially fatherless child?

Not to excuse what is clearly abuse, but, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (Reg. U.S. pat off.)

This man's son, if dad maintains his income and presence in his life, is going to have a FAR better life by any measure than if dad is gone for the rest of his life and mom has to rely on her own abilities to care for he and the other children in the family. (In this case, absent other claims mom allowed such abuse previously or participated in it, the kids are not going to go into the System. A system with all kinds of problems on its own.) Far better. He will probably grow up with some sense of discipline and a desire to act with respect towards others, one day will attend college and/or have the funds to start his own business or otherwise learn a skill to support himself and his family. While the long-term consequences are difficult to predict, both from the specifics of the abuse and from the "resilience" of the child, it is quite possible this child's worst result from the abuse is the far greater likelihood he will be an abuser when he is a father. A strong male model who has had treatment to understand the issues and who does not commit such abuse again can be some of the best things that happen to this child's future and the children of this child's future. While CPS personnel are always quick to remove a child under possible abuse situations, they also work hard to return the child to family. Most states have huge presumptions relating to the parents being the best one's to care for their children. Even if the parents have issues.

So, if we look to a single instance and demand action that may not help the child (depending on all the facts) and is likely to hurt the child out of emotions, is that the same error the father made? The child did a disrespectful thing and dad dealt with him in the way he was trained in child-raising by his father in order to make the child better. Was the abuse wrong? Yes. Are there not numerous other strategies that would have accomplished the same or better things without the possibility of injury? (Short or long term.) Of course. But, why do you want to punish the child again without knowing all the facts?

My wife trains social workers on the differences between abuse and neglect and how to document them in ways to regularize the data. This is an attempt to try to remove the subjectiveness of the process and inject some objectiveness. You see, things are rarely clear; they are rarely black and white where zero tolerance is the proper call. You would be amazed at the studies regarding the observer's (social worker's) history and how that affects the decision made. That is, the remove or no decision and the culpability of which parent for their acts or omissions can be more a product of the social worker's pathologies than on the specifics of a particular set of facts.

The point is not to excuse either the fiance beater or the child beater being discussed. The point is to show this is an extremely hard problem to deal with. And, as has been the case in every instance where the emotions come out, zero tolerance does not seem the answer. It never seems to fix the underlying problems and usually adds another set of problems on top.
This is JUST my opinion:

I think this 4 year old would be better off not having the "man" who beat him bloody in his life. Putting this "man" in jail where the "man" can damage another little child, to me, is a good thing. This 'man' is justifing his assault on a LITTLE CHILD. He WILL do it again if given a chance. 'cause his parents "spanked" him that way...:rolleyes:

No amount of money for CS can compensate for that trama to a little one. IMO.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
This is JUST my opinion:

I think this 4 year old would be better off not having the "man" who beat him bloody in his life. Putting this "man" in jail where the "man" can damage another little child, to me, is a good thing. This 'man' is justifing his assault on a LITTLE CHILD. He WILL do it again if given a chance. 'cause his parents "spanked" him that way...:rolleyes:

No amount of money for CS can compensate for that trama to a little one. IMO.
You are doing the same thing as the 'man', by acting as you think right without consideration of what IS right. Perhaps before you roll your eyes you should read some of the literature on the issues. You will find the "trama" in many cases do not result in long term harm with the most likely long-term harm being the child has learned a parenting lesson. Now, compare that harm to the long-term results of a child without two parents participating in their life. (Especially the same sex parent.) While the literature has progressed from the "pathology of matriarchy" theory the Moynihan Report used to address the statistical issues resulting from the lack of resources (Economic, Role Model, guidance, discipline and structure) a father provides, the debate is not over the fact that there are statistical issues with children raised by single parent households, but on the reasons why.

But, remember the context of my post. You wanted to remove a parent (Let's not use 'man' as women abuse/neglect children too.) and jail him forever for beating a child until he bleeds. What if the beating is a single smack with an open hand on the behind and the child to avoid the smack jumps away and hits his head causing bleeding? What of the mother who sends her child to school forgetting to feed him because she was focused on the next fix? What of the father who tells his kid to stand up for himself with the bully and the child gets a beating or worse? What of the mother who takes some of the marijuana and forgets her child in the tub? (I think that one was Adam-12 or Dragnet so it must be true.) What of the father who uses guilt and fear of eternal damnation rather than force to keep his child in line? What of the mother who feeds her child nothing but processed food because that is all he will eat and it was fine for her? What of the father who allows his high school aged son to play football? What of the mother who drinks heavily and who acts completely appropriately towards the child in all ways except for modeling the alcoholic behavior? What of the father who smokes? What of the mother who buys a smart car to take the child to school? What of the father who allows his son to walk to school?

What are the statistical odds of any of the above things on the long-term risk to the child?

Now, let me tell a personal story. My mother came from a family of an Irish and a Polish immigrants. Right through Ellis island. They had 7 children (As was the style of the time for Catholics.) and my grandfather worked in the textile mills--making good money. His problem was, he drank. Hard. Friday and Saturday was bar night and he would get hammered with his buddies. However, he was not the type of drunk that laughed loudly and loved people when under the influence, he got mean. The meanness and anger resulted in beatings to my grandmother and mother and uncles and aunts. Over time, the family found that if they just stayed out until after he got home, he would eventually pass out and things would be fine. If they got caught at home if he came home early, they would hide in the attic. That's the extent of the story I know as told me by my mother. She did not speak of the injuries sustained, but it was clear these were beatings and not smacks with open hands.

To me, my grandfather was awesome. As my parents both worked, I had the privilege to stay with he and nanna during the day. He never hit me and we got to walk downtown every day while he taught me to read by pointing out all the signs on the way. I am the luckiest man in the world, in part, because of grampa. I had a great mom who never hit me (but once), at least as far as I recall. And a large extended family with many cousins I see still.

Now, does any of this happen if we are not talking about a rich football player but a man who works in the mills with an immigrant wife who barely spoke the language and who's prospects for supporting herself and 7 children are bleak if he would be jailed forever? There were pathologies in the family. Both my uncles were probably alcoholics and one of those had a temper so I suspect he may have abused my cousins. They never told me he did, but... Still, the family mitigated its problem as best it could. Wouldn't it have been better if, rather than fearing the jailing of the dad and keeping the secrets such families keep, they could have asked for help and the result would have been treatment for the issues of drinking and thinking hitting children was alright? You see, the story of my family's history is not unique. They were dependent on him. With modern welfare, such situations have less dependence on the wage earner. But, life is better when two are helping raise the family and at least one is working.

Your zero tolerance put the abuser away forever results in a statistical likelihood of long-term damage to the child that may or may not be greater than the abuse itself. It also drives the problem underground when the others calculate that risk. How many times do we see someone come on to the forum where it was clear they were abused by their spouse but now they want the government intervention to go away. Why do you think that is? Same issues.

This is a complex issue with many different considerations. Anyone who looks to an emotional reaction as guidance for the best course in all situations needs to look at why they want to hurt so many to make themselves feel good.
 

davew128

Senior Member
The concept of REASONABLE force also applies to athletes and victims claiming self defense. A mad, drunk woman pushing you doesn't deserve to be KO'd.

Quite frankly, the way I was raised, I'd have either taken it or simply grabbed her to keep her from striking me. I would never once have remotely considered the option of popping her like Rice did. Dollars to donuts, that was not the first time he'd been so physical with her ... probably wasn't the last, either.
I don't think even the most hardened Ravens fan would suggest knocking the woman out was acceptable. Me, I wouldn't take it so I would likely restrain her until whatever fit she was having subsided.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
You are doing the same thing as the 'man', by acting as you think right without consideration of what IS right. Perhaps before you roll your eyes you should read some of the literature on the issues. You will find the "trama" in many cases do not result in long term harm with the most likely long-term harm being the child has learned a parenting lesson. Now, compare that harm to the long-term results of a child without two parents participating in their life. (Especially the same sex parent.) While the literature has progressed from the "pathology of matriarchy" theory the Moynihan Report used to address the statistical issues resulting from the lack of resources (Economic, Role Model, guidance, discipline and structure) a father provides, the debate is not over the fact that there are statistical issues with children raised by single parent households, but on the reasons why.

But, remember the context of my post. You wanted to remove a parent (Let's not use 'man' as women abuse/neglect children too.) and jail him forever for beating a child until he bleeds. What if the beating is a single smack with an open hand on the behind and the child to avoid the smack jumps away and hits his head causing bleeding? What of the mother who sends her child to school forgetting to feed him because she was focused on the next fix? What of the father who tells his kid to stand up for himself with the bully and the child gets a beating or worse? What of the mother who takes some of the marijuana and forgets her child in the tub? (I think that one was Adam-12 or Dragnet so it must be true.) What of the father who uses guilt and fear of eternal damnation rather than force to keep his child in line? What of the mother who feeds her child nothing but processed food because that is all he will eat and it was fine for her? What of the father who allows his high school aged son to play football? What of the mother who drinks heavily and who acts completely appropriately towards the child in all ways except for modeling the alcoholic behavior? What of the father who smokes? What of the mother who buys a smart car to take the child to school? What of the father who allows his son to walk to school?

What are the statistical odds of any of the above things on the long-term risk to the child?

Now, let me tell a personal story. My mother came from a family of an Irish and a Polish immigrants. Right through Ellis island. They had 7 children (As was the style of the time for Catholics.) and my grandfather worked in the textile mills--making good money. His problem was, he drank. Hard. Friday and Saturday was bar night and he would get hammered with his buddies. However, he was not the type of drunk that laughed loudly and loved people when under the influence, he got mean. The meanness and anger resulted in beatings to my grandmother and mother and uncles and aunts. Over time, the family found that if they just stayed out until after he got home, he would eventually pass out and things would be fine. If they got caught at home if he came home early, they would hide in the attic. That's the extent of the story I know as told me by my mother. She did not speak of the injuries sustained, but it was clear these were beatings and not smacks with open hands.

To me, my grandfather was awesome. As my parents both worked, I had the privilege to stay with he and nanna during the day. He never hit me and we got to walk downtown every day while he taught me to read by pointing out all the signs on the way. I am the luckiest man in the world, in part, because of grampa. I had a great mom who never hit me (but once), at least as far as I recall. And a large extended family with many cousins I see still.

Now, does any of this happen if we are not talking about a rich football player but a man who works in the mills with an immigrant wife who barely spoke the language and who's prospects for supporting herself and 7 children are bleak if he would be jailed forever? There were pathologies in the family. Both my uncles were probably alcoholics and one of those had a temper so I suspect he may have abused my cousins. They never told me he did, but... Still, the family mitigated its problem as best it could. Wouldn't it have been better if, rather than fearing the jailing of the dad and keeping the secrets such families keep, they could have asked for help and the result would have been treatment for the issues of drinking and thinking hitting children was alright? You see, the story of my family's history is not unique. They were dependent on him. With modern welfare, such situations have less dependence on the wage earner. But, life is better when two are helping raise the family and at least one is working.

Your zero tolerance put the abuser away forever results in a statistical likelihood of long-term damage to the child that may or may not be greater than the abuse itself. It also drives the problem underground when the others calculate that risk. How many times do we see someone come on to the forum where it was clear they were abused by their spouse but now they want the government intervention to go away. Why do you think that is? Same issues.

This is a complex issue with many different considerations. Anyone who looks to an emotional reaction as guidance for the best course in all situations needs to look at why they want to hurt so many to make themselves feel good.
With all do respect I disagree with your post.


BTW: I am just posting my PERSONAL OPINION on the Peterson case. :)
 

single317dad

Senior Member
Yes, I agree. Your interpretation is absurd. The law allows for self defense against unwanted touching (aka battery).
Tell that to all the men (myself included) who have spent the night in jail and ponied up the non-refundable $150 10% bond (for first-timers) because they pushed their babymama away or grabbed their wife's wrist when she was attacking them. It's real. If you don't believe that, you're in denial. The law is written quite clearly and is enforced exactly as written, all in an attempt to reduce domestic violence.

What Rice did was an overreaction, if indeed he was reacting to being attacked (which I don't necessarily believe). He should be charged. However, if he'd simply pushed her aside, in my state at least, he still probably would have been charged.
 

Ladyback1

Senior Member
It is hard for me to fathom how a parent can "discipline" a child to the point that the child bleeds.
However, I do know the area, the mindset and society that Adrian Peterson grew up in. And that sort of discipline is still accepted and practiced. I don't think he should go to jail. I believe that he should be required to attend parenting classes, maybe anger management classes--and he should have to pony up the money for supervised visitations (for a while, not indefinitely). That is what the average schmoe would have to do in this sort of instance.
 

TigerD

Senior Member
It is hard for me to fathom how a parent can "discipline" a child to the point that the child bleeds.
However, I do know the area, the mindset and society that Adrian Peterson grew up in. And that sort of discipline is still accepted and practiced. I don't think he should go to jail. I believe that he should be required to attend parenting classes, maybe anger management classes--and he should have to pony up the money for supervised visitations (for a while, not indefinitely). That is what the average schmoe would have to do in this sort of instance.
And -if/when- the government proves that allegation, there will be some form of remedial action to change Peterson's perception of acceptable punishment.

DC
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I got nothing. I say that from the perspective of someone who has held a child who is crying and upset and asking ME why their FATHER would whip them to the point of scars and bleeding. I was the child's GAL. That child (the first child I was GAL for) crawled into my lap and cried, wanting to know why their daddy whipped them so badly. The child was crying. The child was upset. The child had bruises. The child had scabs. I had a law degree and training.




NOTHING trains you for that. That child's tears, a decade later, haunt me. That parent lost custody, had to take parenting classes, had to go through anger management and counseling, had to jump through hoops.

The fact that Adrian Peterson was (until this morning) playing football -- well he is now staying home and doing nothing for more than $11 million a year. I don't feel sympathy for him. For his four year old, I weep. And yeah, I am heartless. I am a witch (try *itch but I can't type that though I have been accused more than once). I am ticked off at this.

And the reason the Vikings reversed yet again? My guess is Castrol, Radisson, Anheuser-Busch -- who are NOT content and spend hundreds of millions -- and ****. Pathetic.

It's simple. If you draw blood, cause bruises/welts -- it is NOT discipline. It is ABUSE.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top