Smack!

The sound of a palm striking flesh is such a distinct sound – clean, sharp, focusing. Even in a busy restaurant, it stung my ear and I looked across to the little hand – the chubby, dimpled one of a toddler who reached for an empty wine glass.

Now, I was exhausted after five jam-packed days at BlogHer. I was eating alone reading news on my phone because I was schmoozed out and needed to feel a little bored. I was missing my littles a lot. So maybe that sound rung in my ears longer and louder than normal.

It sure seemed that the sound of that smack & its accompanying  “NO! No touching!” disturbed my dinner a lot more than the mess a broken wine glass might have.

The second time she reached for it, I was already listening. And flinched – though she didn’t. The third, this time for the break basket, I braced for her and ached when she cried as her mother coldly scolded her, “I told you, no TOUCHING!”. By that point, I was so enraged that I knew that no good would come from engaging – so I left.

When I tweeted it, one response suggested that I should intervene. And I admit I did think about it. I had several responses fully scripted out from withering to thoughtful – but I probably wouldn’t have pulled off thoughtful and supportive because I was feeling neither.

And really would it have been helpful to tear a strip off a complete stranger in a restaurant? Clearly, if you are regularly slapping your toddler, you have given some thought to it – this wasn’t a knee-jerk grab as a kid darted into a crowd or instinctively slapping her hand from a flame.

And it’s legal, right? Well, I don’t know about the state of California, but I was thinking about this and so I checked out the details. In fact, it turns out that in Canada, it would not be legal to slap a toddler’s hand. A summary of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada that on section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “spanking law”):

The majority of justices in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law upheld s. 43 on the basis that it protects only parents, schoolteachers and persons who have assumed all of the obligations of parenthood.  Further, it maintains a risk of criminal sanction if force is used for non-educative or non-corrective purposes, and limits the type and degree of force that may be used.  The words “by way of correction” in s. 43 mean that the use of force must be sober and reasoned, address actual behaviour, and be intended to restrain, control, or express symbolic disapproval.  The child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from the correction, so that s. 43 does not justify force against children under two or those with particular disabilities.

The words “reasonable under the circumstances” in s. 43 mean that the force must be transitory and trifling, must not harm or degrade the child, and must not be based on the gravity of the wrongdoing.  Reasonableness further implies that force may not be administered to teenagers, as it can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour, may not involve objects such as rulers or belts, and may not be applied to the head.  While corporal punishment itself is not reasonable in the school context, a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that teachers may use force to remove children from classrooms or secure compliance with instructions.

I would guess that most parents, whether they spank or not, don’t realize that corrective force cannot legally be used against children under the age of 2 or against teenagers. I would also guess that the law is rarely applied except in aggravated cases. It’s hard to imagine calling the police over a parent slapping their toddler’s hand or spanking them on the bum.

And yet, there it is – and I am left wondering even more what the right answer was. Clearly, since I am still troubled by it four days later, my “slink away and stew about it” solution wasn’t it.

Creative Commons by alegri / 4freephotos.com