g
Utah Law - Child Abuse and Spanking
Is spanking considered to be child abuse under Utah criminal
law?
Child abuse can come in many forms, and under different circumstances
may carry
misdemeanor or
felony penalties. Under Utah’s child abuse
statute, physical abuse is defined as any "nonaccidental harm of a
child" or "threatened harm of a child” and can include striking,
kicking, burning, biting, or any action that can result in physical
harm as well as circumstances that threaten a child with harm or create
a risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare. In the case of
Provo City v. Cannon
(1999), the Utah Court of Appeals found that dangling a child over the
railing of a balcony constituted child abuse even though there was no
actual injury to the child. But more recently, in the case of
B.T. and S.T. v. State of Utah
(2017), the Utah Supreme Court reversed a juvenile court’s
determination that “hitting a child with a belt or strap or other
object” was abuse, even though there was no actual injury to the child.
These two cases share some striking similarities, and the juvenile
court’s decision seems in many ways to be in line with the previous
Court of Appeals decision. But there are several important distinctions
that allowed the Supreme Court to reach a seemingly opposite conclusion
without overruling the Court of Appeals’ prior decision in
Provo City v. Cannon.
The issue before both of the appellate courts was whether or not the
trial or juvenile courts had erred in determining if the facts of each
case constituted abuse under Utah’s child abuse statute and its
definitions. The defendant in
Provo
City v Cannon, as observed by several witnesses, held a
nine-month old baby over the railing of his third-floor apartment
balcony. The defendant in
Cannon
was convicted in a trial court of child abuse. In the case of
B.T. and S.T. v. State of Utah
the parents stipulated to the factual allegations that they had used a
rhinestone studded belt to spank their children. The juvenile court
ruled that these spankings constituted child abuse.
The defendants in both
Cannon
and in
B.T. and S.T.
appealed, arguing that the state provided no evidence showing the
children had actually suffered any physical injury or harm.
And, they contend that without any evidence that the children had
actually suffered physical injury or harm, the trial and juvenile
courts had erred in ruling that their conduct constituted abuse.
The defendant in
Provo
City v Cannon, relied on the plain meaning of “physical
injury” when he made his argument that the state presented no evidence
the child suffered physical injury. The concept of “physical injury” as
the term is ordinarily used requires that there be some physical
impact. The defendant in
Cannon
contended that holding the child over the balcony railing did not cause
a physical impact on the child. The Court of Appeals, however,
addressed the definition of “physical injury” found in Utah code §
76-5-109 as “an injury to or condition of a child which impairs the
physical condition of the child,” that can include bruises, contusions,
lacerations, abrasions, failure to thrive, malnutrition and “any other
condition which imperils the child’s health or welfare and which in not
a serious physical injury as defined in subsection 1(d).” The court did
not interpret the statute as requiring any physical impact, instead
pointing to term “imperil” as meaning “to expose to the chance of
danger.” The court held that when the defendant, for whatever
reason, held the nine-month old child over the railing of his balcony,
the risk of harm was great enough to support a determination that he
had “exposed the child to the chance of injury” or “imperiled” the
child’s health and welfare. Thus, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court’s determination that dangling a child over a balcony
railing did support a conviction of child abuse.
Unlike
Cannon,
the Utah Supreme court in the case of
B.T. and S.T. v. State of Utah
agreed with the parents’ argument that “spanking a child with a belt,
without any additional proof of harm” does not constitute abuse under
Utah law. It could be tempting to assume that the parents in this case
did more than lightly pat their children with a belt. But the Supreme
Court held that without any evidence as to the severity or effects of
the spankings or the way in which the rhinestone belt was used, such a
finding would be based only on speculation. Instead, it appears that
the juvenile court had relied on a “per se” rule that would have
established that any time a child is struck with an object they are
harmed. The Supreme Court rejected this per se rule. noting that such a
rule would be problematic because it “has the potential to sweep
non-abusive behavior into its net.” There are many ways a parent might
strike a child that would not cause harm and should not be considered
to be child abuse - like having a pillow fight, throwing rolled up
socks, or playing with a foam sword or pool noodle. The Supreme Court
points out that the state likely could have proven harm without much
additional evidence. But because additional evidence was not presented
by the State, it was unclear how hard the parents hit the children, or
if the children suffered any pain, or were otherwise injured or harmed
physically or emotionally by the spankings. Thus, without evidence of
harm, the facts of this case did not support a finding of
child abuse
under Utah law.
While these two appellate cases raised similar arguments, the facts and
evidence presented in each case supported seemingly opposite
conclusions. The act of dangling a child over a third-floor
balcony railing is sufficient to show that a child’s health and welfare
has been imperiled or threatened. On the other hand, the act of
spanking a child with a belt is not, by itself, enough to constitute
child abuse. Proof that the spankings caused harm or injury - either
physical or emotional, is required to support a conviction of child
abuse.
Choosing a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

Child
abuse penalties in Utah can be severe. If
you are facing criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor or felony offense
in Utah,
choosing
the right criminal attorney is critical. With
experience defending
cases including child abuse homicide and other felony and misdemeanor
child abuse allegations, we have the
skill,
knowledge, and tenacity needed to help you get the
results you need.
We also work with clients who have been previously convicted, helping them clear their records through processes of
expungement,
402 reduction, and pardon.
Contact
us today to see how
the right
criminal defense
attorney can help you.