lol... me again.... this time i'm with you if you want to do something about that. it is against the law for someone who is not a biological (or adoptive) parent to physically disicpline a child, the specific law says (and i'm reading this right out of the statute)
"Physical discipline of a child, including the reasonable use of corporal punishment, is not considered abuse when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a **parent or guardian** for the purposes of restraining or correcting the child. The age, size, and condition of the child, and the location of any inflicted injury shall be considered in determining whether the bodily harm is reasonable or moderate. Other factors may include the developmental level of the child and the nature of the child's misconduct. Physical punishment must leave no more than transient visible marks, and transient pain."
Abuse is defined as:
(a) Throwing, kicking, burning, or cutting a child;
(b) Striking a child with a closed fist;
(c) Shaking a child under age three;
(d) Interfering with a child's breathing;
(e) Threatening a child with a deadly weapon;
(f) Doing any other act that is likely to cause and which does cause bodily harm greater than transient pain or minor **temporary marks** or which is injurious to the child's health, welfare and safety. ↑ |
| in short... she isn't a parent or gaurdian, and bruises are not "temporary" marks. any mark lasting more than 24 hours is not considered "temporary" in most courts. Those statutes are for Washington state though, definitions of abuse may vary where you are. (lol, can you tell i work for a law firm?) ↑ |
| p.s. the statutes i was referring to was RCW:388-15-009 if you want to look it up (you can google RCW and get the site) and read the entire section on abuse. ↑ |
