doglover
09-19-2013, 09:24 PM
As I said in another post, I am a family law attorney. I see all kinds of family issues, and unfortunately, some of my cases involve child abuse. Kids are abused both physically and emotionally by their parents. To say that the Chief was abusive is absurd. He would not even be considered abusive for this day and age, much less back during the years that he was raising his kids. Was he a perfect father? The answer is clearly no. Was he a good father? The answer is yes.
The Chief believed in discipline, including spanking. Spanking is not child abuse. And spanking with a belt is not child abuse either. The belt has a bad reputation because there are so many cases where a belt is involved in a case of real child abuse. However, it depends on the *manner* in which it is used. Beating with a belt and spanking with a belt are two different things. Beating would be hitting as hard as a parent could mulitple times all over a child's body leaving bruises and maybe other wounds. Spanking is giving a few quick swats on the buttocks.
We never see the Chief give a spanking, but when he did I would bet he gave his children a few swats on their backsides. They learned their lesson and moved on. Of course they never wanted to get a spanking, and of course it hurt. It is *supposed* to. Since when is a child supposed to enjoy being punished? I'm sure if the Chief had figured out a way to punish his kids and have them enjoy it while still being effective, he would have done it. I have felt the belt before. Yes, no doubt it hurts, but it doesn't last. The girls probably had a few red marks on them afterwards, but no harm was done.
The girls would have been growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s. Back then spanking was not controversial. Kids got spanked then. Kids expected to get spanked for wrongdoing. And I can tell you, it is still in practice now. Despite all the controversy and "studies" on the negative effects of spanking, parents still widely use it. A lot of parents don't admit it, but they do. It's just that it is not politically correct anymore. How funny would it have been if the Chief had ordered Samantha to time-out after she uttered the racial epithet. If he had said that, Samantha would have probably said "huh, what, are you okay Dad?"
The Chief wasn't perfect. He made lots of mistakes. He wasn't always as understanding as he should have been. He yelled when he should have listened. He said things to his daughters that he shouldn't have. He lost his temper way too often. He made a big deal out of nothing sometimes. He wasn't sympathic when he needed to be at times. He was a bit sexist. He had prejudices. He was too old-fashioned on some things. But these things don't make him a bad father and certainly not an abusive one. His daughters loved him dearly. He took care of them and made sure they had what they needed. He would have given his life for them.
In the family court and juvenile system, I have seen all kinds of abuse. There was a mother one time who used her own child as a shield when her boyfriend was shooting at her. She picked the child up and held him in front of her to stop the bullet. Kids have had blackeyes and broken bones and burns and everything else. And the emotional abuse is sometimes worse with kids being told by their parents that they wish they were never born, that they are horrible kids, and that they wish they would die.
Were the Chief to go into family court, no way would his kids be taken away. Any judge would see the Chief as a great father. It is not necessary to agree with everything the Chief does. For instance, I think he was wrong to slap Julie and Katie. I don't like slapping. You could accidently injure an eye by slapping someone. But, I think he was sorry he did that. Things happen. Julie said she could never hate him. They talked it out and made up. After all, Julie was not innocent. She lied directly to her father and then blew smoke in his face. After losing his wife to cancer, that was more than the Chief could take.
The Kanisky girls were well-brought-up kids. They were taught right from wrong and manners. Their father and Nell loved them and took care of them. They were provided for. They were disciplined when needed. Well, sometimes Nell intervened and stopped it, but the lesson was learned.
Sorry. I didn't mean to make this so long. It's just that so many negative postings have been made about the Chief and his parenting, the family law attorney in me just had to defend him. He would be a great client, LOL.
The Chief believed in discipline, including spanking. Spanking is not child abuse. And spanking with a belt is not child abuse either. The belt has a bad reputation because there are so many cases where a belt is involved in a case of real child abuse. However, it depends on the *manner* in which it is used. Beating with a belt and spanking with a belt are two different things. Beating would be hitting as hard as a parent could mulitple times all over a child's body leaving bruises and maybe other wounds. Spanking is giving a few quick swats on the buttocks.
We never see the Chief give a spanking, but when he did I would bet he gave his children a few swats on their backsides. They learned their lesson and moved on. Of course they never wanted to get a spanking, and of course it hurt. It is *supposed* to. Since when is a child supposed to enjoy being punished? I'm sure if the Chief had figured out a way to punish his kids and have them enjoy it while still being effective, he would have done it. I have felt the belt before. Yes, no doubt it hurts, but it doesn't last. The girls probably had a few red marks on them afterwards, but no harm was done.
The girls would have been growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s. Back then spanking was not controversial. Kids got spanked then. Kids expected to get spanked for wrongdoing. And I can tell you, it is still in practice now. Despite all the controversy and "studies" on the negative effects of spanking, parents still widely use it. A lot of parents don't admit it, but they do. It's just that it is not politically correct anymore. How funny would it have been if the Chief had ordered Samantha to time-out after she uttered the racial epithet. If he had said that, Samantha would have probably said "huh, what, are you okay Dad?"
The Chief wasn't perfect. He made lots of mistakes. He wasn't always as understanding as he should have been. He yelled when he should have listened. He said things to his daughters that he shouldn't have. He lost his temper way too often. He made a big deal out of nothing sometimes. He wasn't sympathic when he needed to be at times. He was a bit sexist. He had prejudices. He was too old-fashioned on some things. But these things don't make him a bad father and certainly not an abusive one. His daughters loved him dearly. He took care of them and made sure they had what they needed. He would have given his life for them.
In the family court and juvenile system, I have seen all kinds of abuse. There was a mother one time who used her own child as a shield when her boyfriend was shooting at her. She picked the child up and held him in front of her to stop the bullet. Kids have had blackeyes and broken bones and burns and everything else. And the emotional abuse is sometimes worse with kids being told by their parents that they wish they were never born, that they are horrible kids, and that they wish they would die.
Were the Chief to go into family court, no way would his kids be taken away. Any judge would see the Chief as a great father. It is not necessary to agree with everything the Chief does. For instance, I think he was wrong to slap Julie and Katie. I don't like slapping. You could accidently injure an eye by slapping someone. But, I think he was sorry he did that. Things happen. Julie said she could never hate him. They talked it out and made up. After all, Julie was not innocent. She lied directly to her father and then blew smoke in his face. After losing his wife to cancer, that was more than the Chief could take.
The Kanisky girls were well-brought-up kids. They were taught right from wrong and manners. Their father and Nell loved them and took care of them. They were provided for. They were disciplined when needed. Well, sometimes Nell intervened and stopped it, but the lesson was learned.
Sorry. I didn't mean to make this so long. It's just that so many negative postings have been made about the Chief and his parenting, the family law attorney in me just had to defend him. He would be a great client, LOL.