State Supreme Court Screws up: Striking and kicking a child after he falls is not "abuse"? (Connecticut)

Dad NATHAN J is a-okay with the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court just decided, in their infinite wisdom, that not only was it "reasonable" to "strike" your child to "maintain discipline," you could even kick him after he fell down! Maybe the Connecticut Supreme Court needs to brought up on child abuse charges. Of course there was protective mother who was slapped down in the process.

http://www.wtic.com/CT-Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Father-Who-Struck-Son-/5739755

Posted: Monday, 23 November 2009 1:12PM

CT Supreme Court Sides With Father Who Struck Son for Discipline

Matt Dwyer Reporting

The state Supreme Court finds in favor of a father who claimed he struck his son to maintain discipline.

The father, identified only as Nathan J. in the decision, allegedly struck his son on the face, then kicked him, when the child fell down.

The boy had pushed a teacher at school.

The child's mother, who was divorced from his father, and school officials called police and the state Department of Children and Families, when they later saw a bruise on the boy's face.

But Nathan J. argued that his actions were okay, under the parental jusitification defense.

The father argued that he used reasonable physical force to maintain discipline.

The Connecticut justices said a lower court should have allowed that defense to apply to the charge of risk of injury to a child, which Nathan J. had faced.