reasonable the issue is whether this is where it gets into the reasonable is a kind of a vague slippery sort of term so the standard in illinois has been looking at legal precedent the only times have the judge actually making the findings of the seems to be a very happy little boy he's there in court on testifying that day and again he doesn't seem to be a child is abused and clearly he was not taken out of the home was there that day so this is  home take steps to investigate but that's not criminal as an appearance right under the constitution to raise their child and interfere in that manner so there's a grade of privacy under the constitution for a parent to discipline craig his or her child ye privacy you know it's the privacy interest it's like almost and absolutely we're not seeing say which has outlawed the use of purple punishment for whatever reason in the united states we've decided that parents have a place to raise their children and they can exercise corporal punishment which means taking objects that hand an object to the child to discipline them but we cannot allow them to commit once in the school to so the standard here is that there is no physical harm to this child nobody harm found guilty of insulting to both provoking domestic battery for displaying one's child that's never happened because punishment by its very nature to a child no one's going to want and wants can be insulted any even a little two year olds can start crying  so she purposely business in an object because she didn't want the child associate the mother's hand with mom with with the end the opposite of love so in this case you know parents have their reasons for what they're doing and this is not for the state to be interfering in california please the court to put it simply i believe the posing side has a different view of the term insulting and provoking in terms of bodily harm to put it quite simply if you were to adopt the battery whether the batteries are best carry is quite similar to protect physical integrity when there is no bodily harm in the context of this particular case whether or not the victim was wearing a poppy coat that might to shield him from body blows stop and then she quickly leaves the scene i mean regardless this doesn't show me at least that this was a person in control for actions this was quite simply as you put it somebody who watched it and started stroking the case nothing speaks more clearly to the state's position than the fact that the defendant simply lost control i mean it's not whether it's not whether it's only that she was using an object it's not whether the child was covered with puffy code it's that the de here the line is drawn or was drawn for a particular reason it's not because the child sustained a physical harm it's because the defendant ceded the reasonable use of force the justification no longer apply it's not because she  of criminal behavior because parents have such this fundamental liberty interest this privacy right under the constitution to raise and control their children and it is when a child suffers no physical harm such as in a case like th from the pain that would be a different situation what we have a situation here is that there is no physical injury there is no bottle of harm if you can imagine somebody ankle curse and you know the judge decided that there is nobody harms that they didn't