FL: Judge Finds Slap Didn't Amount To Child Abuse

[rucky]

Naples Daily News

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/news/article/0,2071,NPDN_14940_4037512,00.html

Judge finds slap didn't amount to child abuse
By CHRIS W. COLBY, [e-mail]
August 29, 2005

The baby sat on his mother's lap. His father sat at her side on the couch inside their Naples Park home. The 5-month old boy, Kale, faced forward with his back against his mother's chest and began sucking on his fingers.

And his dad, Alton Kessler Jr., reached over and backhanded Kale in the face, the mother said. "No child of mine will suck on his fingers," Kessler, 29, said.

The slap led to a criminal charge. That led to a trial, which ended in an acquittal of felony child abuse.

After hearing testimony from the boy's mother and grandmother who said they saw the slap, a Collier County Circuit judge dismissed the case halfway through the Aug. 16 trial. Judge Lawrence D. Martin ruled the slap didn't rise to the level of child abuse.

"I was shocked," prosecutor Rob Crown said. "The boy can't do anything to protect himself, and we can't sanction that behavior. It's not broken bones or stitches, but it's still a serious offense."

-MORE-

[rucky]

1. that fell fast....

kick

[steve2470]

2. Dad was an asshole at the bare minimum

Felon...hmm....at least a 1st degree misdemeanor.

[LeftyMom]

3. That's just stunning

Some asshole can backhand an infant (for doing something that's an instinct no less) and it's not a crime?

:grr:

[MountainLaurel]

13. You said it

A five-month-old!

Once again I wonder why some people have children if they're not going to learn what's normal behavior and if they're not going to love them.

I saw we find dear daddy and slap him across the face with a two-by-four. Several times. With nails sticking out of it.

[Richard Steele]

4. Everyone in the world should be allowed to slap this asshat...

...without fear of criminal charges!

A backhand isn't assault, right? He has the AQUITTAL to prove it!

[BlueIris]

5. Vile. I could barely stand to read that article.

And again, vile.

This part is among the most shocking aspect of the whole thing to me:

"'I was shocked," prosecutor Rob Crown said. "The boy can't do anything to protect himself, and we can't sanction that behavior. It's not broken bones or stitches, but it's still a serious offense.'"

So, if the child can somehow defend himself, his parent isn't abusing him? Holy shit. As I have asked many times, what goes on in Florida, truly?

[dsc]

6. I think he was pointing out that

a backhand of say a 15 year old may well not be abuse given the fact he could move etc. Of a baby it surely should be.

[BlueIris]

7. The attorney's language is inexcusably poor.

"a backhand of say a 15 year old may well not be abuse"

If that "backhand" is somehow legitimately in self-defense, maybe. Hitting your child for the sake of hitting them or as a perverse form of "punnishment" isn't acceptable under any circumstances, no matter what age the child is when you're "rasing" it. Civilized states, with valid legal systems understand that. The attorney's phraseology serves to validate the judge's sick, vile assessment that a parent hitting a child is okay, which it is not. Whether or not the victim of assault could have defended him or herself doesn't make the attacker any less culpable of the crime.

With a prosecutor that stupid, however, I wonder if there was something other than the judge's insanity at fault for his ruling.

[fishwax]

15. I don't see his language as poor at all

it's generally accepted that the defenseless (like babies) are always more in need of our protection. The DA didn't say it wouldn't be child abuse if only he could defend himself.

He did, however, have to respond to a defense motion during the trial to dismiss based on an earlier court case involving a school age boy. In that case, the court actually ruled it WASN'T child abuse, even though there were noticable issues. So the prosecutor had to argue that this case didn't fall under the precedent.

Here's the sick part:

Calvo also cited State v. Figueroa, a July 5, 2001, decision from the Third District Court of Appeal. In that case, a father struck his son twice in mouth at the dinner table. The father split the boy's lip and forced him eat, causing the child to choke. The court held that doesn't rise to the level of child abuse either.

[converted_democrat]

8. In some areas it's a whole different world........

I feel I have the right to say it, I've lived here for awhile now.

[elehhhhna]

9. This is the type of father who kills a two year old over potty training.

He'll make a headline again within the year.

[MountainLaurel]

12. Or the child will

When he ends up blowing away a few classmates, or beating his little brother to death.

[Submariner]

10. It's not child abuse...it's only really corporal punishment

That's what the nuns called it as they slapped the shit out of me and my classmates. My favorite was when they would tie our hands to the back of the chair we were sitting in and then hit us so we couldn't protect our face from the stinging slaps.

I hope all those nuns died miserable and painful deaths in their old age....they deserved it.

[youthere]

11. Sucking his fingers? Obviously he was asking for it....

Up at two AM? SMACK! MY kids will sleep through the night!
Get that damn bottle out of your face! WHAP! MY kids eat steak!
You're not drooling are you? CRACK! No kid of mine is going to teeth!
:sarcasm:

[never_get_over_it]

14. I'm probably in the minority here

as I have seen several threads where folks belive hitting a child under any circumstances is wrong. I happen to believe a smack on the BUTT - never in the face to a child to get their attention - IF they are doing something that is dangerous is certainly not abuse - but NEVER in the face or head and NEVER a freaking infant - what was this judge thinking.