Tina Dione Woodson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Published Opinion (2022)
Rule of Law:
The parental privilege defense against assault and battery protects corporal punishment unless it inflicts significant physical harm—defined as injury beyond transient pain or temporary marks—or otherwise creates a substantial risk of serious harm based on the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Woodson discovered her twelve-year-old twins violated household rules regarding cell phone usage and subsequently lied about it.
- She instructed her son to retrieve a belt and ordered both children to lie on a bed.
- Woodson struck the children with the non-buckle end of the belt; the daughter estimated receiving between six and ten blows, while the son reported being 'spanked.'
- The children attended school the same day, where the son reported to a resource officer that he did not feel safe going home.
- Investigators observed bruises and marks on the children, though the son clarified that some marks on his face and thigh were caused by his father in a separate incident.
- The injuries specifically attributed to Woodson consisted of soreness and bruises on the daughter's back and thigh, and a mark on the son's leg.
- The children did not require medical attention for the injuries caused by Woodson.
- Department of Social Services specialists interviewed the children later that day and observed discoloration but no linear marks or significant bruising.
Procedural Posture:
- Woodson was charged with two counts of assault and battery in the Circuit Court of Hanover County.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, Woodson moved to strike the Commonwealth's evidence based on the parental privilege defense, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court convicted Woodson of both counts of assault and battery.
- Woodson filed a written motion to set aside the verdict, arguing the discipline was reasonable, which the trial court denied.
- Woodson appealed the convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent's use of a belt to discipline children constitute excessive force sufficient to negate the parental privilege defense when the resulting injuries are limited to transient bruises and soreness?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Lisa M. Lorish
No, the discipline was not excessive because it did not result in significant physical harm or create a risk of serious harm to the children. The Court reasoned that the parental privilege to discipline exists to protect parents from state interference in routine parenting decisions. The Court clarified that for discipline to be considered 'excessive' criminal conduct, it typically requires proof of 'significant physical harm,' which is defined as injury exceeding transient pain or minor temporary marks. In this case, the use of the soft end of a belt resulting in only minor bruises did not meet this threshold. Furthermore, absent significant harm, the totality of circumstances—including the parent's average size, lack of rage, and the instrument used—did not suggest a risk of serious harm. The Court emphasized that a trial judge cannot substitute their own parenting philosophy (preferring phone restriction over spanking) to establish criminal liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between permissible corporal punishment and criminal assault in Virginia. By defining 'significant physical harm' as injury beyond 'transient pain or minor temporary marks,' the Court provides a concrete standard that protects parents from criminal liability for common, albeit controversial, disciplinary practices like spanking with a belt, provided the physical effects are temporary. It limits the discretion of trial judges to convict parents based merely on a disagreement with the method of punishment or the nature of the child's underlying misconduct. The ruling underscores that the state's police power should only intervene in parenting when there is an objective risk of serious harm, rather than a subjective critique of parenting choices.
