ILNews

Appellate court addresses parental privilege in 2 opinions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In two cases involving the parental privilege defense, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a teacher who “flicked” a special education student’s tongue and against a father hit his daughter numerous times with a belt.

In Trinda Barocas v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1007-CR-732, special education teacher Trinda Barocas appealed her conviction of Class B misdemeanor for “flicking” the tongue of a student with Down syndrome. Barocas had twice told the student to put her tongue back in her mouth and when she didn’t, Barocas flicked her tongue, causing the student to wail and cry.

Barocas argued she wasn’t guilty because teachers have qualified immunity for reasonably necessary disciplinary acts. Parents have legal authority to engage in reasonable discipline of their children, even if that conduct would otherwise be battery, and that justification has been extended to teachers, within reason, wrote Judge Melissa May. The judges looked to Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177, 180-81 (Ind. 2008), which discussed the parental privilege defense and noted for the state to sustain a conviction of battery where a claim of parental privilege has been asserted, the state must prove either the force the parent used was unreasonable or that the parent’s belief that such force was necessary to control the child and prevent misconduct was unreasonable.

The appellate court found Barocas’ force against the student was not cruel or excessive, and it doesn’t rise to the level of “unreasonable force.” The judges were unable to find any decision in which a parent or teacher’s conviction of battery was upheld based on the use of force as minimal as that used by Barocas, wrote Judge May. The state also didn’t prove the second element of the test adopted in Willis – that the teacher was unreasonable to believe a physical prompt was necessary to control the student’s behavior of sticking out her tongue. They reversed Barocas’ conviction.

But in Jeffrey L. Hunter v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1011-CR-1224, a different Court of Appeals panel ruled against father Jeffrey Hunter who argued his Class A misdemeanor battery conviction should be reversed because the evidence didn’t rebut his parental privilege defense.

Hunter had ongoing disciplinary issues with his 14-year-old daughter B.H. and after finding out she had someone forge a signature on a permission slip to go to Indiana Beach, he ordered B.H. to strip down to her underwear and come to him in the living room. When she wouldn’t tell him who paid for the trip, he hit her around 20 times with a belt, leaving injuries that were still present months later. The “degrading and long-lasting physical effects” of her injuries differentiate this case from Willis and the appellate court concluded he used unreasonable force. They upheld his battery conviction.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

ADVERTISEMENT