State of Ohio v. Hicks (Microsoft Word Format)
OUTCOME: A father was convicted of Domestic Violence for spanking his daughter. The Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case.
v. Adaranijo (Microsoft Word Format)
OUTCOME: The court stated, "Courts should be slow to intervene between
parent and child. The criminal court is not the place to resolve petty
issues of discipline. The domestic violence laws are meant to protect
against abuse, not to punish parental discipline."
WALSH v. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES (Microsoft Word Format)
OUTCOME: An Ohio family was threatened with arrest unless they allowed two social workers into their home. Because the social workers had no warrant, the family filed a civil rights lawsuit. The United States District Court ruled against the social workers and awarded damages to the family.
Doe v. Heck (pdf. Format)
OUTCOME: The court states, "We recognize, as the Supreme Court has, that the view that 'corporal punishment serves important educational interests' is deeply rooted in this republic's history. However, no matter one's view of corporal punishment, the plaintiff parents' liberty interest in directing the upbringing and education of their children includes the right to discipline them by using reasonable, nonexcessive corporal punishment.
State v. Holzwart (Microsoft Word Format)
OUTCOME: A stepfather was arrested for disorderly conduct, on the basis of defendant's claiming that he was going to bash his stepdaughter's head in and his throwing a telephone in the stepdaughter's direction. He was convicted, and appealed his case. The Appellate Court reversed the decision, stating that the stepfather's "discipline meted out fell within established parameters of proper and reasonable parental discipline."
State v. Krull (Microsoft Word Format)
OUTCOME: A six year old boy was disciplined by his mother's boyfriend, striking the boy on the back, buttocks, and legs while the mother held the child down. Two days after the child was beaten he had "extensive bruising of the buttocks and legs," some raised linear marks, and a bloody cut. The boyfriend and mother were arrested and and charged with Child Endangering, under Section 2919.22 (E)(2)(d), which describes the injuries to the child as "serious physical harm." They appealed their case. The Appellate Court agreed with the lower court, stating that the injuries to the child constituted serious physical harm.