Limits of discipline

Limits of discipline | Daily Tribune

Child discipline and its limits have recently become a topic of debate, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the boundaries of discipline.

In a recent ruling, the SC’s Second Division stated that if a method of discipline harms a child’s dignity, it may be classified as child abuse.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, upheld the conviction of a father for child abuse after he had subjected his 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son to violent and excessive discipline.

The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found the father guilty of violating Republic Act 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The father appealed to the SC, arguing that he had no intention of harming his children’s dignity. However, the SC ruled that his actions went beyond reasonable discipline and showed a clear intent to harm the children’s dignity.

The High Court stated that if a method of discipline harms a child’s dignity, it may be classified as child abuse.

The ruling represents a significant shift in how we, particularly parents, understand children’s rights and dignity.

Under Section 3(b) of RA 7610, any act that debases, degrades, or demeans a child’s dignity is considered child abuse.

The SC ruling raises important questions about the nature of discipline, the psychological impact on children, and our societal responsibilities in nurturing the younger generation.

By recognizing that discipline, in its harshest forms, can violate a child’s dignity, the decision not only redefines what can be considered child abuse but also encourages parents, educators, and guardians to reconsider their approaches to discipline.

Historically, discipline has been viewed through various lenses; some see it as a necessary component of childhood development, while others view it as a potential pathway to psychological and emotional harm.

Traditional methods of discipline often included physical punishment or harsh verbal reprimands based on the belief that strict measures would foster obedience and respect.

Research, however, has consistently shown that such practices could result in long-lasting adverse effects on children, including increased aggression, anxiety, and a deteriorated sense of self-worth.

The belief that children have inherent dignity that deserves protection is fundamental to understanding their rights. This principle emphasizes the importance of constructive discipline instead of punitive measures, creating an environment where children can learn from their mistakes without fearing humiliating consequences.

The SC decision reflects global views on prioritizing children’s emotional and psychological well-being.

It echoes this global sentiment, reinforcing the need for policies and practices prioritizing children’s emotional and psychological well-being.

In practical terms, the SC decision necessitates re-evaluating disciplinary strategies. Educational and parenting resources are crucial in guiding adults to adopt positive reinforcement techniques instead of punitive measures.

Methods like active listening, explaining the consequences of actions, and establishing empathetic boundaries can foster a healthier understanding of discipline. It highlights the importance of teaching children about their rights and how to express their feelings safely.

By doing so, we not only prevent child abuse in all its forms but also nurture a future generation that respects themselves and others, thereby contributing to a more compassionate society.

(You may send comments and reactions to feedback032020@gmail.com or text 0931-1057135.)