The full article:

Pct. 6 Justice of the Peace Gustavo “Gus” Garza will not be able to allow spanking as an option for disciplining children in his courtroom, according to a court ruling Wednesday.

State District Judge Abel C. Limas, who asserted jurisdiction in the case, halted spanking as a form of punishment in Garza’s courtroom on Wednesday. Limas pointed to the protection, safety and emotional well-being of children as his reason for approving the temporary injunction.

“I am encouraged that Judge Limas acted to protect the interests of the children of Los Fresnos,” said Mark Sossi, the attorney who on behalf of three families requested that courtroom spankings be stopped.

The ruling came after the filing of a lawsuit by Mary Vasquez and Daniel Zurita against Garza last week. The lawsuit alleges that Zurita had felt compelled to spank his stepdaughter in lieu of a $500 fine and criminal conviction for truancy.

“Obviously, we had one judge acting outside his authority when forcing parents to spank their children in his courtroom,” Sossi said. “It doesn’t help the children with anything, and it contributes to a circus-like atmosphere in the courtroom.”

Cameron County Chief Counsel Richard Burst said he didn’t know whether the county would attempt an appeal.

“I think it’s best to sit on it and make a decision tomorrow,” said Burst, who with co-counsel Bruce Hodge, defended Garza at Wednesday’s hearing.

With the county’s legal represenation at his side, Garza took the stand early in the hearing to defend the spankings.

“I think that discipline works,” Garza said of paddling, which he said parents select in lieu of paying fines by choice. “It’s effective. It’s efficient. It’s immediate. There are no questions.”

Garza said that he did not compel or coerce parents to paddle children. However, he also testified that he does not provide other alternatives to fines, such as counseling or community service, because he does not believe these are effective.

He estimated that fewer than 100 children have been paddled in his courtroom since he took office in January 2007.

During the hearing, Sossi directed Garza to demonstrate how children are positioned for the paddling. Stepping down, Garza placed his arms on the armrests of a chair and bent down with his buttocks facing Limas.

“I find your approach trying to embarrass me,” Garza told the attorney. Sossi rebutted by asking whether Garza thinks 13- and 14-year-old girls and boys would find it humiliating.

Limas also found that there had been no criminal intent on Garza’s part and that the spankings had not been illegal. The judge ordered Garza to refrain from this form of disciplinary action in the courtroom.

Vasquez and Zurita also took the stand, noting that they do not believe in corporal punishment. Zurita said he felt he had no choice but to paddle his stepdaughter because he did not have the money for the $500 fine.

“There were no other options,” Zurita testified.

Limas indicated agreement in his comments from the bench, noting that he at times would not have been able to pay $500 either and that he had heard no testimony that the fines had been less than $500. “There needs to be a clear option,” Limas said.

Limas indicated that the Texas Legislature would be the body that could address the issue of corporal punishment in the courts.

“We are not here to make law,” Limas said.

Source: Perez-Trevino, Emma. Without a Paddle. The Brownsville Herald. June 11, 2008.

The Case’s Background:

Sophia Willis is a single mother raising her eleven-year-old son, J.J., who has a history of untruthfulness and taking property belonging to others. The events at issue in this case began at an elementary school Friday, February 3, 2006. On that date J.J.’s fifth grade teacher, Ms. McCuen, saw J.J. giving a bag of women’s clothing to a classmate. Finding this to be an “odd exchange,” Ms. McCuen contacted J.J.’s mother. Willis met with Ms. McCuen and identified the clothing as hers. Experiencing ongoing disciplinary problems with J.J., Willis sent him to her sister’s home over the next two days to ponder her options. When J.J. returned on Sunday Willis had a long conversation with her son and questioned him about his conduct. J.J. denied taking the clothing and instead concocted a story that shifted blame to other students. Willis warned that if he did not tell the truth he would be punished. J.J. again gave the same story. In response Willis instructed J.J. to remove his pants and place his hands on the upper bunk bed. J.J. complied, and Willis proceeded to strike him five to seven times with either a belt or an extension cord. [Footnote: The evidence on this point is in conflict.] Although trying to swat J.J. on the buttocks, his attempt to avoid the swats resulted in some of them landing on his arm and thigh leaving bruises. J.J. testified that during this exchange his mother was “mad.” Tr. at 9. Willis countered that she was not angry but “disappointed.”

The following Monday J.J. returned from gym class and asked to see the school nurse. Showing the nurse the bruises, J.J. told her that he received a “whooping” from his mother “[b]ecause I had took some clothes and I had lied.” The nurse contacted child protective services that in turn contacted the Indianapolis Police Department.

An Excerpt of the Indiana Supreme Court’s Decision:

[We adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts view:] “A parent is privileged to apply such reasonable force or to impose such reasonable confinement upon his [or her] child as he [or she] reasonably believes to be necessary for its proper control, training, or education….

In determining whether force or confinement is reasonable for the control, training, or education of a child, the following factors are to be considered:
(a) whether the actor is a parent;
(b) the age, sex, and physical and mental condition of the child;
(c) the nature of his offense and his apparent motive;
(d) the influence of his example upon other children of the same family or group;
(e) whether the force or confinement is reasonably necessary and appropriate to compel obedience to a proper command;
(f) whether it is disproportionate to the offense, unnecessarily degrading, or likely to cause serious or permanent harm.

We hasten to add that this list is not exhaustive. There may be other factors unique to a particular case that should be taken into consideration. And obviously, not all of the listed factors may be relevant or applicable in every case. But in either event they should be balanced against each other, giving appropriate weight as the circumstances dictate, in determining whether the force is reasonable….Thus, to sustain a conviction for battery where a claim of parental privilege has been asserted, the State must prove that either: (1) the force the parent used was unreasonable or (2) the parent’s belief that such force was necessary to control her child and prevent misconduct was unreasonable.