Texas judge beats his daughter for gaming [trigger warning]

[sourmìlk]

When the allegation is abuse still ongoing, yeah, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't this always the case until the trial ends?

No? If your allegation is not "he abused me at some time in the past" but rather "he is abusing me now", I am pretty sure the answer will always be "then CPS will investigate and possibly remove you". And if CPS says "nope" then it's your word against theirs.

Our system: it is some shit.

Oh, I see what you mean. Well in Hilary's case she couldn't go that far back as the statute of limitations has expired. But immediately after a case of abuse in which CPS refused to act?

[jakovasaur]

Wow, I just watched that, and it was a lot worse than I thought it would be. Not sure how anyone could try to justify that. On the plus side, when I typed "judge" into google search bar, the first suggested result was "judge william adams", so word is definitely out.

[ginadagny]

This whole situation is just sickening, now onto another sour note:

Sheriff Bill Mills said Wednesday that William Adams, a family law judge who handles child abuse cases, has disconnected his phone because of threatening calls and faxes after the video went viral. Mills said Adams told him he did not plan to go to his office at the courthouse Wednesday.

We expect the people who defend children to be decent human beings, right?
Ugh.

[jakovasaur]

He has a fax machine in his home in 2011? Ugh.

[The Reaper]

So, if you go to Here, set the state to Texas, and set the box next to "Definitions of Child Abuse", you end up with

Spoiler:

Texas
Child Abuse and Neglect
Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, download the PDF (587 KB) of this publication.
Physical Abuse
Citation: Fam. Code § 261.001

'Abuse' means the following acts or omissions by a person:

Physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm
Failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury or substantial harm to the child
The current use by a person of a controlled substance in a manner or to the extent that the use results in physical, mental, or emotional injury to a child
Causing, expressly permitting, or encouraging a child to use a controlled substance

Is the child still alive and healthy? That should kill off the "substantial harm" part of "abuse".

[Levi]

He has a fax machine in his home in 2011? Ugh.

It's probably not solely a fax machine. There's a printer/fax combo in my house.

[jakovasaur]

He has a fax machine in his home in 2011? Ugh.

It's probably not solely a fax machine. There's a printer/fax combo in my house.

You're right. Forget what I said earlier.This guy's alright in my book.

[Radical_Initiator]

Come on, fax is the only way to get the Anachronistic Abusive Asshole newsletter. This month's top story: "Kids! I Mean, Come On!"

[iamevn]

It is my wish that people stop threatening my father and start offering professional help. That is what he really needs.

Well that would be a fairly mature stance she's taking

[SummerGlauFan]

It is my wish that people stop threatening my father and start offering professional help. That is what he really needs.

Well that would be a fairly mature stance she's taking

I wonder where she gets that from. Certainly not her dad.

[Lucrece]

I love how he says "It's not as bad as it looks on tape". Was the lighting really that off that it would distort the scene?

[Eldritch]

Some soft lighting and some candles would have really changed the whole perspective, honestly.

[SummerGlauFan]

Or the tape was stuck on a loop of him hitting her once or twice, and it just seemed like a lot.

[Diadem]

it was four years ago and the statute of limitations is only two years for personal injury and that's passed (...)

The statue of limitations on child abuse is two years?

That is seriously fucked up. That is in fact so fucked up I can hardly believe it even from a backwards place like Texas. Child abuse is something most victims will only talk about years and years later - if at all. How the fuck can it expire after two years? So if I beat a 10 year old completely senseless, and she's too scared of me for the next few years to tell anyone about it (a very plausible scenario), I get off scot-free?

Combine this with a ridiculously broad law about what kinds of 'discipline' are allowed, and the conblusion is basically that child abuse is legal in Texas.

How can this hold up to Federal scrutiny? Are states really allowed to make laws that say: "This class of citizens, yeah, you can beat them senseless whenever you please". Isn't it the federal government's task to stop states from doing things like that?

[sourmìlk]

Children aren't (and shouldn't be) classified as full citizens. That's why children have (and should have) reduced rights. Obviously though, the right to a lack of physical harm isn't one that should be compromised based on age.

[Ulc]

I love how he says "It's not as bad as it looks on tape". Was the lighting really that off that it would distort the scene?

At a guess I think the defence goes something along the line of

"Yeah, it looks bad. But this is different! She totally deserved it, and I'm not a loser child abuser! Abusers are those I see in my court, and I'm a well eduated judge!"

People are amazingly good at having double standards.

[sourmìlk]

I love how he says "It's not as bad as it looks on tape". Was the lighting really that off that it would distort the scene?

At a guess I think the defence goes something along the line of

"Yeah, it looks bad. But this is different! She totally deserved it, and I'm not a loser child abuser! Abusers are those I see in my court, and I'm a well eduated judge!"

People are amazingly good at having double standards.

Indeed.

Interestingly, he ruled at one point that lack of video evidence was sufficient to dismiss a child abuse case. That's both a laughable standard, and one that was met.

[iChef]

I love how he says "It's not as bad as it looks on tape". Was the lighting really that off that it would distort the scene?

Take the video turn off the audio and play "Yakety Sax" over it and play the video at slightly increased speed. You can see how it's not so bad.


But seriously this is no way to punish a child, especially a 16 year old. He's very lucky his daughter is a mature young lady. you would think people would think twice about using violence in a place like Texas where guns come in Happy Meals.

It really looks like he is going to get what he deserves. His reputation is forever ruined and it looks like he is being investigated in great detail. It is also fortunate the girl wasn't seriously harmed.

[EdgarJPublius]

in a place like Texas where guns come in Happy Meals.

Excuse me?

[yurell]

I believe they're exaggerating the prevalence of firearms.

[Tirian]

it was four years ago and the statute of limitations is only two years for personal injury and that's passed (...)

The statue of limitations on child abuse is two years?

According to the DA, the statute of limitations is five years. But it actually happened seven years ago. So unless there are relevant federal laws, he won't be charged with a crime. Which is not to say that he's off scot-free, since he's highly likely to lose his re-election bid next week.

Only question is whether he'll get the help that his daughter is hoping for. Seems like he's not inclined to seek is voluntarily, which is a pity.

[buddy431]

it was four years ago and the statute of limitations is only two years for personal injury and that's passed (...)

The statue of limitations on child abuse is two years?

That is seriously fucked up. That is in fact so fucked up I can hardly believe it even from a backwards place like Texas. Child abuse is something most victims will only talk about years and years later - if at all. How the fuck can it expire after two years? So if I beat a 10 year old completely senseless, and she's too scared of me for the next few years to tell anyone about it (a very plausible scenario), I get off scot-free?

Combine this with a ridiculously broad law about what kinds of 'discipline' are allowed, and the conblusion is basically that child abuse is legal in Texas.

How can this hold up to Federal scrutiny? Are states really allowed to make laws that say: "This class of citizens, yeah, you can beat them senseless whenever you please". Isn't it the federal government's task to stop states from doing things like that?

The sources I'm reading are giving a 5 year statute of limitations for "causing injury to a child, or similar offense", which is probably more reasonable. Keep in mind that most (non-sexual, non-killing) felonies are 3 years, and misdemeanors two years in Texas. cite

Edit: Looking closer, I guess robbery and theft have 5 year limits too, so it's probably largely drug-related felonies that are three years.

[Diadem]

That's still ridiculously short.

Here in The Netherlands the statue of limitations for child abuse is, iirc, 12 years. More importantly though the counter only starts at the kid's 18th birthday. This is very important, because otherwise young kids will always be pretty much shit out of luck. You can't expect kids to bring charges against their own parents while still living at home and being dependent on them. It's just not reasonable to expect that of them.

Not that a statue of limitations matters, if the abuse is legal in the first place, which it apparently is.

I still don't understand how it can't be a federal crime though. I know states have rights, but surely they don't have the right to declare one class of citizens to be sub-humans you can beat up with impunity? Isn't it in the constitution somewhere that all citizens have a right to life and liberty?

[EdgarJPublius]

I believe they're exaggerating the prevalence of firearms.

I believe the implication was that an abusive father would have reason to be afraid that his 16 year old daughter would pull a gun on him.

It's the 'place like Texas' part I find especially galling. Because of course in Texas, everyone and their horse has a 'six-shooter' and engages in gunfights on public streets at the drop of a (ten gallon) hat.

Edit:
Along with other 'even in Texas' type statements in the thread which show ignorance towards Texas and Texans and extreme ignorance towards the fact that serious abuse can and does happen anywhere 'even' in civilized left-leaning jurisdictions.

[the_bandersnatch]

I believe they're exaggerating the prevalence of firearms.

I believe the implication was that an abusive father would have reason to be afraid that his 16 year old daughter would pull a gun on him.

It's the 'place like Texas' part I find especially galling. Because of course in Texas, everyone and their horse has a 'six-shooter' and engages in gunfights on public streets at the drop of a (ten gallon) hat.

That's my understanding of the place, yes.

[EdgarJPublius]

I believe they're exaggerating the prevalence of firearms.

I believe the implication was that an abusive father would have reason to be afraid that his 16 year old daughter would pull a gun on him.

It's the 'place like Texas' part I find especially galling. Because of course in Texas, everyone and their horse has a 'six-shooter' and engages in gunfights on public streets at the drop of a (ten gallon) hat.

That's my understanding of the place, yes.

Thank you for your enlightening response.


On the topic of Statutes of Limitations:
Even if the counter did start at 18 (which seems reasonable to me), a five year statute would have expired by now.
This case is difficult in that respect because the abuser was still financially supporting her, which just adds to the pressure not to report the abuse.
Texas does have a ten year statue for felonious (first degree) child abuse, and ten years, (from eighteenth birthday) for sexual child abuse.

Also, it does seem, from some of the articles that have been linked here, that he is being investigated for domestic violence against his wife and abuse of his younger daughter who is still a minor.

[the_bandersnatch]

I believe they're exaggerating the prevalence of firearms.

I believe the implication was that an abusive father would have reason to be afraid that his 16 year old daughter would pull a gun on him.

It's the 'place like Texas' part I find especially galling. Because of course in Texas, everyone and their horse has a 'six-shooter' and engages in gunfights on public streets at the drop of a (ten gallon) hat.

That's my understanding of the place, yes.

Thank you for your enlightening response.

You're welcome!

[sourmìlk]

That's still ridiculously short.

Here in The Netherlands the statue of limitations for child abuse is, iirc, 12 years. More importantly though the counter only starts at the kid's 18th birthday. This is very important, because otherwise young kids will always be pretty much shit out of luck. You can't expect kids to bring charges against their own parents while still living at home and being dependent on them. It's just not reasonable to expect that of them.

Not that a statue of limitations matters, if the abuse is legal in the first place, which it apparently is.

I still don't understand how it can't be a federal crime though. I know states have rights, but surely they don't have the right to declare one class of citizens to be sub-humans you can beat up with impunity? Isn't it in the constitution somewhere that all citizens have a right to life and liberty?

That's the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document. But anyways, rights do not necessarily apply to minors, and they shouldn't. Of course, the right not to be beaten should apply to minors. And while a child's right not to be harmed should be in the constitution, it was written in an era where corporal punishment was common, and changing that would be too unpopular among extremist conservatives.

[The Reaper]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/03/justi ... index.html

[savanik]

In the United States, the age of majority is 18. Before you are this old, you cannot:

Live independently from your parents and control your life
Vote
Marry without parental consent
Obtain non-emergency medical treatment without parental consent
Run for office, or
Enter into contracts. Which includes:

Apply for credit
Work at a job (including military service)
Sue someone
Make a will

For all of the items under 'Enter into Contracts', your parent can enter into a contract for you. With, or without, your consent. Your parent is the primary signer and responsible for the terms of the contract. E.g. Your parent gets the credit card in their name, your parent gives you access to the credit card. And if you run up a $10,000 bill texting people in Somalia, your parent is responsible for the charges.

Some ages may vary from state to state. Most states require you to be 21 to drink alcohol, for example.

But before you're 18, your parents can, quite legally, give you a hiding with a belt for stealing shit from the local store. Is this somehow different because she was merely violating copyright law?

[Triangle_Man]

If it's legal to give your kid the belt if they're under 18, then maybe someone should change the fucking law.

[Belial]

Well, this wasn't just a spanking with a belt, either. It's verbal abuse, intimidation, terror, and beating-in-anger. With a disturbing amount of pleasure to it. "Get out of the way, I didn't get a proper turn"? Really?

If you're trying to argue this isn't child abuse, I'm intrigued to see how you're going to turn that one, Savanik.

[Lucrece]

Oh, but "hiding with a belt" sounds so harmless and old-fashioned, it must be OK. Nothing curious about the need to seek an item other than your hand (because you may bruise yourself if you hit someone hard enough while angry, and that's just plain inconvenient) to inflict more effective suffering.

And since when does fairly murky "theft" (illegal downloads is not even a socially unpopular practice, and youtube now facilitates the consumption of products for which you didn't pay) become grounds to take a page from the Middle Ages in how to deter crime?

If you're so indignant about stealing music, you're free as a parent to extract payment for the music from said kid, either by withholding gifts/allowances or selling their items to pay for it.

[Роберт]

But before you're 18, your parents can, quite legally, give you a hiding with a belt for stealing shit from the local store. Is this somehow different because she was merely violating copyright law?

If the reason for the Judges behavior was theft, it's still completely inexcusable. I'm rather hoping you didn't watch the video and are just being an idiot because you don't know any better. I'm not against using pain as discipline, and I don't think spankings are necessarily child abuse. What the man in the video is doing is terrible; it doesn't matter if it's because she burped loudly with her mouth open or because should committed armed robbery at a liquor store, his response is completely wrong.

[savanik]

Well, this wasn't just a spanking with a belt, either. It's verbal abuse, intimidation, terror, and beating-in-anger. With a disturbing amount of pleasure to it. "Get out of the way, I didn't get a proper turn"? Really?

If you're trying to argue this isn't child abuse, I'm intrigued to see how you're going to turn that one, Savanik.

Alrighty.

It's not legally child abuse for several reasons: the weakest, yet most correct, is that the statute of limitations has expired. The girl in this video was 16 at the time, and is 23 now. That's a 7-year gap in which she possessed this tape but didn't show it to anyone before posting it to the internet. I'm not arguing its authenticity, but I would ask... why wait until he can't be prosecuted?

Second, while getting hit with a belt hurts like hell, it does not leave lasting scars, wounds, or other physical trauma that could result in substantial harm. Done properly, it won't even leave bruises. The Texas Family Code of Law specifically excludes 'reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm' as qualifying as abuse. If you'll note, they specifically called it out - it can be reasonably concluded that unless there is substantial risk of harm, it is considered reasonable discipline. This method of discipline does not, therefore it's reasonable, and not prosecutable. If you disagree, I'm sure that a hospital that may have admitted her as a child are being scoured for records of this event by the media even as we speak.

Finally, it's not child abuse for one core reason: Texas, as a society, believes that this sort of treatment of children is acceptable for discipline. You might not like it, you might not agree with it. It's likely that even some Texans don't approve of it, particularly after this video. But as a society, historically and collectively, they sanction it as acceptable. For the Federal government to come in and investigate the judge after the case has been dropped by local government is the same abuse of power that has Federal government agents breaking into greenhouses in California looking for marijuana.

[sourmìlk]

I don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't legally child abuse, savanik. But by any reasonable or moral definition of the words, it is definitely child abuse.

[Dauric]

It's not legally child abuse for several reasons: the weakest, yet most correct, is that the statute of limitations has expired

[Quibble]
It can't be prosecuted because of statute of limitations, that doesn't mean that it's not abuse. A statute of limitations just means that the justice system as a whole considers the evidence and testimony (especially testimony) required to investigate certain crimes to have degraded over time to the point that a just verdict is impossible to reach. It does not mean that the event wasn't an illegal.
[/quibble]

As far as why she waited just look to her own statements: First being that her mother is finally out of the abusive relationship, so she won't bear any reprisals from the daughter's video. Second and the one the young woman puts more emphasis on being that she's not interested in seeing her father incarcerated, just that she wants him to get help with his anger issues. The guy is (was) a judge, getting him locked up is probably a grade-A way to get him shanked.

[savanik]

I don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't legally child abuse, savanik. But by any reasonable or moral definition of the words, it is definitely child abuse.

Morality is defined by the society in which the context of the actions can be judged. I am arguing that the moral standards of Texas are more applicable than the moral standards of the Internet at large, and while we might find these actions personally repugnant and immoral in our own society's standards, we have no say in them.

Now, the U.N. has drafted the Convention on the Rights of Children, but the United States hasn't signed it, so it can't really apply either. And I don't believe there are any federal standards more stringent that would apply. Even the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act excludes reasonable discipline, and the society has to define what reasonable means, morally and legally.

Personally, I believe a reasonable punishment would have been suspension of all computer privileges. But it's not my family, my society, or my state. I have no right to impose force on them to change their views, just as they have no right to impose their views on me.

[EdgarJPublius]

The idea that

Texas, as a society, believes

anything is completely ridiculous. Texas is no more socially or culturally homogenous than California or New York, or any other state for that matter.

In reality, the Texas laws regarding child abuse are not substantially different or more permissive than those of other states. Domestic corporal punishment is legal in all states, and attempts to ban it in California and Massachusetts both failed under massive opposition (attempts to more strictly delineate between acceptable corporal punishment and child abuse were also defeated in the Minnesota supreme court).
However, in many states (including Texas) Child Protective Services can take action, including removing children from the home, in cases of corporal punishment that may not be considered criminal.
Corporal punishment in public schools is still legal in 19 states, and in private schools is legal in 48 states (only Iowa and New Jersey have banned corporal punishment in private schools). However, most urban school systems/districts in states where corporal punishment is legal, have banned such punishment by regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_p ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_cor ... ted_States
http://www.corpun.com/counuss.htm

[Belial]

It's not child abuse for one core reason: Texas, as a society, believes that this sort of treatment of children is acceptable for discipline. You might not like it, you might not agree with it. It's likely that even some Texans don't approve of it, particularly after this video. But as a society, historically and collectively, they sanction it as acceptable.

Before you decided to wank off to cultural relativism, did you bother to check whether any of that was true?

The only reason this isn't prosecutable is because it's expired. Even if it wouldn't have resulted in a conviction, it almost certainly would've resulted in a removal by CFS. This isn't acceptable in texas. In fact, look no further than what happened to the judge: he was suspended, if he returns to work he won't be able to preside over any cases related to this sort of thing, which is basically all cases since he's family law. He is almost certain to lose his job. Need more evidence? He had to kill the lights before he started, because the neighbors might see the silhouettes.

So no, Texas isn't some bizarre savage land where child abuse is totes okay, and the fact that you're in such a hurry to excuse it that way is...worrisome?