Mother was defending against son, judge rules

Woman found not guilty in B.C. assault case

RESPONDED TO (SON’S) TANTRUM BY WRAPPING HER ARMS AROUND HIM.

VERNON, B.C. • A mother accused of assaulting her eightyear-old son has been found not guilty by a B.C. provincial court judge who ruled she was acting in self-defence.

The court heard the boy had behaviour patterns that made him difficult to parent and had regular tantrums.

When his mother refused to buy him a toy, the court heard the boy acted out, swearing at her, calling her names and kicking her several times on the leg.

“(The mother) testified that she responded to (her son’s) tantrum by wrapping her arms around him, in a manner that had previously been recommended to her by her counsellors,” said Judge Richard Hewson.

But they then fell to the ground.

“(The mother) testified that she straddled the child, with one knee on either side of him. She said that she was using her bottom to hold down his legs, and holding her arms near the top of his body. She said that after they had been in that position for a brief period of time, she noticed some dog feces next to his head and warned him, ‘Look out, buddy. There is some dog poop.’ (The mother) said that this made (her son) laugh, and that they got up and went home. She said that at no time did (her son) suffer any injury to his ear.”

The boy testified his mother tripped him, then he hit is head on a power pole and when he fell to the ground she pushed his face into dog feces. But Judge Hewson said there wasn’t any corroborating evidence of the boy’s testimony.

Among the points to be considered, a key one was: “The force used by (the mother), which consisted of wrestling the child to the ground, was proportional to the force used by (her son), which was kicking (the mother) in the ankle or lower calf.”

In his ruling last month, he added, “Wrestling the child to the ground, causing scrapes and bruises, would not have been proportional had (the boy) simply thrown a tantrum, without kicking his mother. However, the law of assault does not make an exception requiring parents to tolerate assaults by their children.”

The judge said he did not believe taking a child to the ground, resulting in bruises and scratches, was a reasonable way to correct behaviour.

“The act of physically restraining a child by hugging him is an act animated by a concern for the child’s safety. In contrast, the act of wrestling the child to the ground is an act animated by anger and frustration.”