Opinion ID: 2332526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: parental control justification

Text: [¶ 19] Where the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we review directly the judgment of the District Court. See Barclay v. Eckert, 2000 ME 10, ¶ 8, 743 A.2d 1259; Johnson v. Smith, 1999 ME 168, ¶ 5, 740 A.2d 579, 581. [¶ 20] A parent has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining a familial relationship with his or her child. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Russell, 182 F.3d 89, 103-04 (2d Cir.1999); In re Alexander D., 1998 ME 207, ¶ 14, 716 A.2d 222, 226-27; In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450, 452 (Me. 1986). This fundamental liberty interest includes the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of children, [4] including the use of reasonable or moderate physical force to control behavior. [5] The parent may be subject to the criminal law when his punishment of the child exceeds the bounds of reason and moderation. State v. Coombs, 381 A.2d 288, 289 (Me.1978), (addressing the status of the law before the effective date of the Criminal Code, but citing 17-A M.R.S.A. § 106 in support of the statement of the law). A parental privilege to use moderate or reasonable physical force, without criminal liability, was recognized at common law: battery is, in some cases, justifiable or lawful; as where one who hath authority, a parent or a master, gives moderate correction to his child, his scholar, or his apprentice. [6] [¶ 21] Today a parent's privilege to exercise physical control over a child is recognized by Maine law in 17-A M.R.S.A. § 106(1). The 1975 comment to section 106, which accompanied the adoption of the Criminal Code, notes that section 106(1) is based on the former crime of cruelty to children, [7] which prohibited a parent, guardian, or other custodian from cruelly treat[ing] or inflicting extreme punishment on a child. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 106 cmt. (1975). The comment states that section 106(1), would appear to be the same rule as is implied in the statutory prohibition against extreme punishment. See id. [¶ 22] Since adoption of the Criminal Code, we have only had one occasion to address the parental discipline justification, and the facts in that case were not close. In State v. Dodd, 503 A.2d 1302 (Me.1986), we affirmed a conviction where a defendant spanked a three-year-old child to stop her from crying, taped her ankles and hands together, taped her mouth shut and hung her from a door knob by her ankles on two occasions for a total of over twenty minutes. See id. at 1303-04. We addressed the parental control justification in a footnote stating that: [t]he trial justice had ample grounds to conclude that the defendant's conduct went far beyond being a `reasonable degree of force' to discipline. Id. at 1304 n. 2. [¶ 23] With this background, we must analyze the District Court's determination that the parental control justification does not apply here. In determining whether facts at trial put a statutory justification at issue, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. See State v. Collin, 1999 ME 187, ¶ 11, 741 A.2d 1074; State v. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 6, 695 A.2d 115, 117; State v. O'Brien, 434 A.2d 9, 13 (Me.1981). The source of the evidence makes no difference, either side may introduce evidence which generates a justification. See State v. Begin, 652 A.2d 102, 106 (Me.1995). Thus, although Wilder did not testify, his son's testimony could put sufficient facts in evidence to place the section 106(1) justification at issue in the trial. [¶ 24] The evidence here is that the triggers for Wilder's exercise of parental control were talking too much or exaggerating. Taking this evidence most favorably to the parent, as we must, talking too much which can annoy people sometimes is a justifiable basis for a parent's exercising control over a child to prevent or punish misconduct. [8] Likewise, exaggerating, which may be construed as misstating or lying, is a justifiable basis for a parent's exercising control to prevent or punish misconduct. Certainly we cannot rule, as a matter of law, that talking too much or exaggerating is not a basis for disciplining or controlling a child. But that is a ruling we would have to make to uphold the District Court's determination. The record contains sufficient evidence to place the parental control justification at issue for each of the three assault charges. [¶ 25] Once a justification is placed at issue as a result of evidence presented at trial, the state must disprove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(1) (Supp.1999). See State v. Hernandez, 1998 ME 73, ¶ 7, 708 A.2d 1022, 1025; Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 6, 695 A.2d at 117; Begin, 652 A.2d at 106. [¶ 26] The charge here was assault, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1), which requires proof that a defendant caused bodily injury intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207(1). Accordingly, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the force that Wilder used and his belief that such force was necessary to control his child were unreasonable, is not enough. The Criminal Code in effect at the time of these events specified that: If a defense provided under this chapter is precluded solely because the requirement that the actor's belief be reasonable has not been met, he may be convicted only of a crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence suffices, depending on whether his holding the belief was reckless or criminally negligent. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(3) (1983), amended by P.L.1999, ch. 358, § 1 (effective Sept. 18 1999). Thus, to sustain a conviction for assault where the parental control justification is generated, the State had to prove, at a minimum, that (1) the force Wilder used was reckless; and (2) Wilder's belief that such force was necessary to control his son and prevent misconduct was reckless. [9] See Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 9, 695 A.2d at 118-19; State v. Davis, 528 A.2d 1267, 1269-70 (Me.1987); State v. Smith, 472 A.2d 948, 951 (Me.1984). [¶ 27] In 1999, by legislation not applicable to this case, section 101(3) was amended to clarify the law by placing into the law the definitional prerequisites for conviction that had previously been incorporated by reference from the definition of recklessness. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 103(3) (Supp.1999). The law now specifies that, where recklessness is an element of a crime, as it is here, and the reasonableness of one's belief is at issue due to a justification defense, a person may be convicted only if holding the belief, when viewed in light of the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to the person, is grossly deviant from what a reasonable and prudent person would believe in the same situation. Id. This clarifying language essentially incorporates existing law on the recklessness standard. Cf. Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 9, 695 A.2d at 118-19; Smith, 472 A.2d at 951; Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 6-56 (1999). [¶ 28] Accordingly, the District Court erred in (i) refusing to consider the parental control justification; and (ii) not requiring the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force Wilder used was reckless and that his belief that such force was necessary for parental control was reckless or grossly deviant from what a reasonable and prudent person would believe in the same situation. [¶ 29] At this point we must determine whether to proceed to address the evidentiary issues raised on the appeal and remand for additional findings or a new trial or remand for a judgment of acquittal if, as a matter of law, the evidence presented was insufficient to support the convictions.