Let me say first, I love the American Deep South, having lived there in the past. Despite the stereotypes, my overall impression is one of wonderful people. Were I to settle permanently in the United States (which I do not plan to do!), the Deep South would be one of the locations I would consider.
But, like everywhere in the world, there are problems, too. Alabama has historically been a crucible of the Civil Rights movement; and now another issue has arisen there: Parental Rights. 50 miles west of Selma lies Demopolis, where the Black Warrior River joins the Tombigbee. There, a case of a child being paddled in school sparked a mother's crusade. The basic story may be seen on the ABC News website, dated 8 November, 2002, but the events happened much earlier than that.
According to the news story, young Jonathan Curtis was paddled at school for picking his nose, and subsequently, bruises appeared which prompted his mother, Michaela Curtis, to take him to the hospital. There, she was told by a police officer that, if she had herself caused such bruises, the boy would probably have been taken from her custody. Seems a straightforward case of child abuse, right? The problem is that, in Alabama, schools are exempt from the child abuse laws, so that there was no legal action possible against Jonathan's school. The school superintendant, Wesley Hill, said that "A child can be spanked even after the parent expressly refuses to consent. It's not an opt-out system."
I wanted to find out more about what really happened, because it seemed to me this was a violation of parental rights. So, on 4 December, 2002, I placed a telephone call to Mrs. Curtis, who had agreed to speak with me. The following is the information revealed in that conversation.
According to Mrs. Curtis, who is a full-time mother, she recieved a telephone call from Jonathan's school on 26 March, 2001, in which she was told that her son was being rude and disruptive in the lunchroom, and also was picking his nose, and the school was requesting permission to administer a paddling of 3 swats. Mrs. Curtis was hesitant, but agreed to it. Jonathan was the youngest of her four children, and this was the first time she had been called about a problem.
When Jonathan arrived home, she also took away his television and other privileges that night, to reinforce the school's discpline; she was disturbed, though, that the discipline slip sent home with him mentioned only the nose-picking, none of the other behaviors the caller had mentioned. She felt it was disproportionate punishment, but thought no more of it. The next day, 28 March, there was no phone call, and Jonathan said nothing about any problems. That evening, however, bruises were discovered on Jonathan, and Mrs. Curtis took him to the hospital to be checked. As it turned out, he had been paddled again, this time without the school having notified her. He said he had been paddled 8 times, but the school would neither confirm nor deny this. And that was when Mrs. Curtis discovered that school personnel are indemnified against child abuse proceedings.
Alabama, like every state, has a legal definition of child abuse. Title 26 states that "permanent marks," "signs of injury," and/or psychological trauma all count as evidence of abuse. The bruises on Jonathan were considered "signs of injury," and therefore met the legal criteria. The problem is that Alabama also has another law, Title 16-28, which specifically exempts all school employees -- from the superintendant down to the custodian -- from liability for violations of Title 26. As a "side effect," Title 16-28 also means that teachers in Alabama are not required by law to report suspected child abuse, as teachers in every other state are.
Although paddling of students by school personnel is permitted by law in several states, all of these except Alabama have an opt-in/opt-out clause, meaning that the parents ultimately decide whether or not the school may paddle their children. Alabama is the exception: school employees may paddle students regardless of the parents' wishes, and not only in school, but on field trips and at school-sponsored extracurricular events.
Mrs. Curtis considers that her parental rights have been violated, and has sent out letters and telephone calls about this to various organizations. As of this writing, it is now nearly two years later, and still she has had no real follow-up. She says that most organizations see the issue as "all or nothing." Exactly what this means, I am not entirely sure, but it seems to be that most "parents' rights" organizations are also in favor of physical punishment, and do not see that the two can be not only separate, but even opposite in some cases. Mrs. Curtis feels that the trust between family and school was betrayed -- she sees discipline as a collaboration between parent and teacher, and had specified that she wanted to be contacted before any paddling was given. They failed to do that on the second occasion.
Mrs. Curtis is not interested in taking away a parent's right to discipline -- she is a parent herself. Nor is she interested in defining what is discipline vs. abuse -- she believes that Title 26 has already done that. But, as she said, "If we have defined child abuse, why should it only apply to those who are not teachers?" All she asks is that the existing standard be applied to everybody, instead of indemnifying some subset of the population. Thus, she wants Title 16-28 repealed.
The response of "parents' rights" groups to this case, will reveal much about their true motives and agenda. Are they truly interested in protecting parents' rights? Or is that just a cover for what is essentially just a pro-spanking agenda? Time will tell.
