When Does Paddling Become Child Abuse?

Many–perhaps even most–parents paddle, spank, or otherwise use physical force to discipline their children. This kind of discipline is generally viewed by law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the courts as a parental prerogative and not as criminal child abuse. Yet there are limits on the degree of physical force that a parent may lawfully employ and the degree of injury a parent may lawfully inflict. A parent who acts with malice, uses grossly inappropriate force or who causes lasting injury may be prosecuted for child abuse. A recent court of appeals case demarcates the boundaries of permissible parental discipline and sets forth standards for determining when physical discipline by parents constitutes criminal child abuse.

State v. Varner. The court of appeals in State v. Varner, ___ N. C. App. ___, 796 S.E.2d 834 (2017), reversed the defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor child abuse based on the trial court’s refusal to define “moderate punishment” as punishment that does not cause lasting injury. Even though the State presented sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s guilt, the court concluded that, due to the erroneous instructions, the jury could have convicted the defendant simply because it thought the degree of punishment was excessive, even if the jury thought the defendant was acting in good faith and did not inflict lasting injury.

Facts. The defendant, his ten-year-old son, and other family members sat down for a pizza dinner. The boy refused to eat the pizza, saying pizza made him gag. The defendant got up from the table, sat down in the living room for a moment, and then picked up a paddle. He went to the table, stood next to his son, and counted down from three. He then struck his son’s left thigh three times with the paddle. He also struck his son’s foot as his son attempted to block the blows. (At some point before striking the boy, the defendant cursed and yelled at him.)

The next morning, the boy’s thigh was bruised. He was in pain for several days. He walked with a slight limp and was not able to participate in gym class at school.  After several days, the pain and bruising subsided.

The charges. The defendant was indicted for felony child abuse. G.S. 14-318.4(a) makes it a Class D felony for the parent or caregiver of a child under 16 to intentionally inflict serious injury upon the child or to intentionally commit an assault upon the child that results in serious physical injury. Serious physical injury is defined as “physical injury that causes great pain and suffering” and includes serious mental injury. G.S. 14-318.4(d).

Misdemeanor child abuse under G.S. 14-318.2, a Class A1 misdemeanor, is a lesser-included offense of felony child abuse. A parent or caregiver commits misdemeanor child abuse if he or she inflicts physical injury upon a child under 16 by other than accidental means.

The jury acquitted the defendant in Varner of felony child abuse, but found him guilty of misdemeanor child abuse.

The jury instructions. The trial court in Varner held a charge conference in which it informed the parties that it planned to advise the jury that it could not convict the defendant if it determined that his son’s physical injuries were inflicted as a result of defendant’s “moderate punishment to correct [his] child.”  The trial judge further indicated that it planned to define “moderate punishment” as “punishment that does not cause lasting injury.” The State objected to this definition, and the trial court, over defendant’s objection, struck it from the instructions. The trial court told the jury that it was to determine whether the punishment moderate was “according to the facts and circumstances of the particular case and in the exercise of [their] reason and common sense.”

The law. To determine whether the trial court’s instructions were erroneous, the court of appeals examined the legal requirements for proving misdemeanor child abuse by a parent. The court explained that, notwithstanding state child abuse statutes, parents generally are permitted to inflict physical injury in the course of administering corporal discipline to their children. This exception to the letter of the child abuse statutes is necessary to acknowledge parents’ constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit. After examining case law from the 19th and early 20th centuries and synthesizing it with the modern-day definition of abuse in the state’s juvenile code, the court explained that a parent who inflicts physical injury on a child under 16 by any of the following means is subject to prosecution for child abuse:

  • Administering punishment that causes or is calculated to cause an injury that is lasting or will continue indefinitely;
  • Administering punishment borne of malice or wickedness of purpose rather than a good faith or honest effort to discipline the child; or
  • Using cruel or grossly inappropriate procedures.


Id. at __; 796 S.E.2d at 836.

The analysis. The court of appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence in Varner from which the jury could find that the paddling caused or was calculated to cause lasting injury. The jury was instructed that the defendant could inflict “moderate” punishment. Because that term was not defined, the jury could have interpreted moderate punishment to mean punishment that is not excessive, rather than what it actually means in this context: punishment that is not calculated to produce and does not produce lasting injury.

There was, in the court’s view, sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant acted with malice: the defendant yelled and cursed at the boy, and jurors might have deemed the paddling excessive. On the other hand, the court reasoned that the jury could have concluded the defendant did not act with malice and that the punishment was not grossly inappropriate.

Given the error in the instructions, the court could not conclude that the jury reached its conclusion based on permissible legal grounds. Therefore, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction.

Varner’s significance.  Experts may frown on corporal punishment, but surveys indicate that it remains a tool of discipline for many parents. Schools, including a handful in North Carolina, likewise continue to employ physical punishment as a sanction for misconduct. Given the prevalence of physical punishment by parents and others, it is helpful to have a 21st century case explaining how the child abuse laws overlay parental prerogative. Varner clarifies that criminal child abuse statutes do not bar the use of physical discipline, but do permit prosecution of parents and caregivers who act with the wrong motivation, impose lasting physical injury or use grossly inappropriate measures.

4 thoughts on “When Does Paddling Become Child Abuse?”

  1. I would think that an article dedicated to factual information wouldn’t make the mistake of such an all inclusive sentence like ‘Experts may frown on corporal punishment…’

    Clearly not ALL experts believe that spanking is bad and in fact there are some who believe that spanking is a necessary and healthy tool in the parent’s toolbox.

    Oklahoma State University’s prestigious ‘College of Human Environmental Sciences’ provides a far more in depth article on the issue with cited sources to support the article which is suspiciously absent from ‘Scientific American’.

    I would suggest everyone read this opposing article so as to have the necessary information to make an EDUCATED decision rather than depend on just one slanted opinion.

  2. Is a leading “all” necessarily implied in the first sentence of the section on “Varner’s significance”? I’m not as sure of this as others may be.

    On another note, the gratuitous shout-out to Gaston County seems certain to have been inserted by a law clerk who just couldn’t contain his or her hometown pride. Guess we’ll never know.

  3. I have never had an issue with parents spanking their children in order to correct behavior. If more parents raised their children, maybe, just maybe, the prison population would be a little lower. Growing up I was more concerned about what my parents would do to me if I got into trouble than I was of the police. But, I do know the difference between spanking and abuse.

    • I too grew up in a error that spanking was a reasonable form of decipline . Crossing the line in my opinion is the use of objects of any kind and leaving marks of any kind. Age of the child should also be a consideration. Unfortunately, with so many opinions common sense has been thrown right out the window. A simple example a child 12 yrs old female weight of 65 lbs disciplined by a father 6ft 220 lbs with a 2ft 2in wooden paddle left with bruises on buttocks low back and leg for excess of 5 days while being thrown on the grown along with screams of verbal abuse also from the throw left bruised on the leg from the fall and this is of question ? That’s right under question?? was this excessive force? Oh yes ! Assault and with aggravated battery in my opinion! This parent will again walk scott free as too many opinions that have no common sense. We should decipline, we as parents should teach right from wrong, respect laws but parents and care givers should be help accountable for their actions . Children aren’t listened too. The system protects more the parents/care givers instead.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.