Actually, no. I didn’t know there was a difference. It was inappropriate whatever it was.
Not relevant. The OP stated that she was the legal parent, and that her boyfriend isn’t. Those were presented by the OP as facts. Me restating them is not an opinion.
She’s 100% right and Dio’s 100% wrong.
The only thing that shoulda been different is it should have been a formal warning given how many mod notes Dio regularly racks up and the blatant ignoring of mod instructions in that thread.
I didn’t give you a warning – I told you that I would if you continued to ignore my instructions.
You were using a fact in order to bludgeon the OP with what, in your opinion, she should be doing and to insist that your interpretation of the significance of that fact was the only factor that needed to be considered. Your single-minded persistence in repeating this fact over and over, in what appears to be an effort to prevent other points of view from being represented, is not acceptable behavior in MPSIMS.
But…but…you’re an expert!
<Is dying> I hereby pronounce you King of the Funny. No wonder Cat Whisperer opted for your fan club instead of mine. 
This is factually incorrect. I was on the OP’s side. I was arguing with other people who were throwing rocks at her and telling her she had no right to tell her boyfriend not to hit her kid. I didn’t “bludgeon” the OP with anything. I was defnding her.
A-hem: that’s “Expert” as in “The Expert”
Why am I taking the time to snark about this? To point out how fruitless it is to argue with The Expert.
Until **Dio **indicates that he’s ready for vocal lessons, let it go.
ETA: His post above this one is my cite. 
You didn’t simply restate what she said. You made a lot of statements about his and her legal rights. Jurisdiction seems pertinent when talking about legal rights.
If I were a mod, I’d not look kindly on asserting that your opinion is fact.
When an adult is left with the care of a child, with the permission of that child’s parent, that adult stands in loco parentis - “in the place of the parent” - for the purposes of both supervision and discipline. It is a long-standing proposition of Anglo-American common law that the parent of a minor child, or one standing in loco parentis, is justified in using a reasonable amount of force upon a child for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare. Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 851 (1947); Boyd v. State, 88 Ala. 169, 7 So. 268, 269 (1890); R. v. Griffin, 11 Cox. Cr. Cas. 402, 403 (Assizes 1869); W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law § 52, at 389-90 (1972).
May the parent limit the use of otherwise legal exercise of force upon the child?
A brief search doesn’t find any cases that directly address that point, but I do note that in states that permit corporal punishment in school, there is no criminal liability attached to a school official that administers corporal punishment in disregard of the parents’ wishes. In Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651 (1977), the Supreme Court held that such actions did not violate the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and was legally permissible.
The vast majority of school districts that still permit corporal punishment do ask for parental permission, either by an “opt-in” (parents must explicitly permit spanking) or an “opt-out” (parents must explicitly deny permission). But these are matters of policy, not law.
As a general proposition, then, legally one who stands in loco parentis to a child has the legal privilege of appropriate physical punishment for that child.
So when you said:
You’re not really stating a fact. She may exercise that right by no longer leaving her child in the care of the boyfriend, but she can’t, by refusing to give permission, create a crime in the boyfriend’s actions. She can, in other words, remove the child from the situation. Which no one doubted. But her order to the boyfriend not to spank does not, so far as I can tell, have any particular legal effect. (Obviously, she may have some sort of breach of contract claim against him if she agreed that he’d care for the child without spanking).
Which of these legal principles did you analyze before asserting your legal opinion?
ouch!
Lawyered.
And your little dog, too!
Seriously, who are you to say your comments weren’t inflammatory? You see everything through the Dio lens.
Two men enter! One man leaves!
Feels like I’m in A Perfect World listening to Butch Haynes school Terry Pugh… and that’s a fact.
[ol]
[li]No one was throwing rocks at the OP.[/li][li]No one was telling her that she had no right to tell the boyfriend not to spank the kid.[/li][li]You are not the internet knight in shining armor. No one needs you to defend them or come to their rescue.[/li][/ol]
It is true that a lot of people did not agree with the OP, but they were doing so in a pretty civil way. You dropped into that thread made constructive discussion for all practical purposes impossible and were called on it by a Mod.
QQ Moar
Hey, I was going for Executive Committee, not just fan club member. Which, by the way, hasn’t worked out - I may have to switch allegiances.
I’m sure Dio will be back shortly to totally blow Bricker’s post out of the water. Right, Dio? Or maybe to apologize to Twickster? One of those things has to happen, right?
I did kind of feel piled-on, actually. someone said that I was using my boyfriend as a dildo and a babysitter. Someone flat out called me absurd. I did get the feeling people were saying, to paraphrase, that I had no right to tell my boyfriend not to spank my kid. But I can understand that people didn’t mean legally. While I thought **Dio ** was probably just playing devil’s advocate, I appreciated his suggesting people stop piling up on me.
What did I say about her legal rights that was factually incorrect? Basically all I said was that she has a right to tell her boyfriend not to spank her kid.