In re S.M

9 Citing cases

  1. Orwig v. Bond

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 160325 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    One of the pictures showed what appears to be a bruise on Connor's right cheek.¶ 22 Terry cites In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 722 N.E.2d 1213 (2000), and In re J.P., 294 Ill. App. 3d 991, 692 N.E.2d 338 (1998), for the proposition corporal punishment by a parent is not per se abusive and a parent has a constitutional right to discipline his child. However, as Terry recognizes, a parent's right to impose corporal punishment must be reasonably exercised.

  2. Prince v. Madsen

    2014 Ill. App. 5th 130577 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    In Illinois, courts have determined that corporal punishment is excessive if the child is injured, the individual imposed the punishment for no reason, the punishment was excessive in light of the circumstances, and medical or expert testimony was presented. In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 706, 722 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (2000). In In re S.M., the mother and stepfather used a belt to punish their 13-year-old daughter.

  3. People v. Rika P. (In re H.M.)

    2018 Ill. App. 182227 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Other factors to be considered include whether: "(1) an injury occurred, (2) the punishment was imposed for no reason, (3) the punishment was excessive in light of the circumstances, and (4) any medical or expert testimony was presented." In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 706 (2000). Finally, the court may also consider the likelihood of future punishment that might be more injurious; the psychological effects of the discipline on the child; and the 15 circumstances surrounding the discipline, including the parent's demeanor, i.e., whether the parent was calm or "lashing out" in anger.

  4. People v. A.H. (In re D.H.)

    2016 Ill. App. 3d 160353 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    ¶ 24 Corporal punishment is not, per se, neglect or abuse. In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 706 (2000) ("There is a difference between vengeance corporal punishment and concerned, caring corporal punishment."); see also 705 ILCS 405/2-18(2) (West 2014). The factors we consider in determining whether corporal punishment is excessive, elevating it to the point of abuse, are whether: (1) an injury occurred; (2) the punishment was imposed for no reason; (3) the punishment was excessive in light of the circumstances; and (4) any medical or expert testimony was presented.

  5. People v. T.O. (In re M.O.)

    2022 Ill. App. 220701 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    "Corporal punishment given in a concerned, caring manner is not abuse and is not neglect." In re S.M., 309 Ill.App.3d 702, 706 (2000). Such is not the case here where respondent's behavior towards M.O. demonstrated a lack of care for his physical and mental wellbeing.

  6. People v. Royster

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 160306 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    ¶ 13 In coming to this conclusion, we acknowledge that defendant has cited authority that does not expressly analyze the "necessary" element. See In re J.P. , 294 Ill. App. 3d 991, 229 Ill.Dec. 565, 692 N.E.2d 338 (1998) ; In re S.M. , 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 243 Ill.Dec. 144, 722 N.E.2d 1213 (2000) ; People v. DeCaro , 17 Ill. App. 3d 553, 308 N.E.2d 196 (1974) ; Parrott , 2017 IL App (3d) 150545, 418 Ill.Dec. 153, 89 N.E.3d 987. Upon review, we do not interpret these cases to stand for the proposition that Illinois law requires only that parental discipline be reasonable, not necessary.

  7. People v. Monique R. (In re Issac D.)

    2013 Ill. App. 131190 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)

    In considering whether corporal punishment is excessive, factors worthy of consideration include whether (1) an injury occurred, (2) the punishment was imposed for no reason, (3) the punishment was excessive in the light of the circumstances, and (4) any medical or expert testimony was presented. In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 706 (2000) (finding no excessive corporal punishment where the record was devoid of any evidence that a belt was used in a vicious manner or for anything other than disciplinary reasons). ¶ 40 Here, there is no evidence of any injuries to the children as a result of corporal punishment, no evidence that the children were hit for no reason, no evidence of the nature and extent of the corporal punishment to even determine if it was excessive, and no medical or expert testimony before this court. As such, we cannot say that the trial court's finding that the children were not abused as a result of corporal punishment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  8. People v. Monique R. (In re Issac D. )

    2013 Ill. App. 131190 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    In considering whether corporal punishment is excessive, factors worthy of consideration include whether (1) an injury occurred, (2) the punishment was imposed for no reason, (3) the punishment was excessive in the light of the circumstances, and (4) any medical or expert testimony was presented. In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702, 706 (2000) (finding no excessive corporal punishment where the record was devoid of any evidence that a belt was used in a vicious manner or for anything other than disciplinary reasons). ¶ 40 Here, there is no evidence of any injuries to the children as a result of corporal punishment, no evidence that the children were hit for no reason, no evidence of the nature and extent of the corporal punishment to even determine if it was excessive, and no medical or expert testimony before this court. As such, we cannot say that the trial court's finding that the children were not abused as a result of corporal punishment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

  9. People v. Abdul K. (In re Diana A.)

    2013 Ill. App. 131567 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    Father points to Diana's rebellious acts and the fact that any parent would be upset if his daughter was sneaking out of the house to have sexual intercourse at 15 years of age. He argues that Diana needed to be strictly punished because of this dangerous and insolent behavior. However, as highlighted above, credibility determinations, particularly under the context of an adjudicatory hearing in an abuse or neglect case, falls within the discretion of the circuit court as the trier of fact. ¶ 31 Father argues that this case is similar to that in In re S.M., 309 Ill. App. 3d 702 (2000). As in this case, the 13-year-old minor in S.M. was disobeying household rules, staying out late, refusing to stay home, engaging in sexual intercourse, and having problems at school.