WHERE AND HOW TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN REASONABLE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND ABUSE

Argues that the distinction between abuse & the "reasonable" parental corporal punishment (CP) permitted in most US states is too important to rely on ambiguous definitions of terms like "reasonable" or "maltreatment." Negative effects of the current lack of definitive definitions include inconsistent case outcomes; failure to provide meaningful guidance; & the risk of false-positive or false-negative findings. It is argued that reform must maintain the substance of reasonable CP exceptions to child-abuse law, require decision makers to account for all valid evidence, & codify the prohibited harm as "functional impairment" (short/long-term damage to emotional or physical functioning). Ways in which legislatures, child protection agencies, & courts draw the line between acceptable & unlawful CP are described, along with the roles of parental-autonomy norms & scientific evidence which sometimes complement each other but often compete for primacy. Emphasize is placed on the need to change the structure of child-abuse statues; clarify terms; & require states to assume the burden of proving parental abuse. A model corporal punishment provision is described. J. Lindroth