Adrian Peterson's Case Paper

In Adrian Peterson’s case, I decided that his action did reflect abuse. I began to research more about the details about this case and found that Peterson disciplined his four-year-old child using a tree branch. The hitting with the tree branch did result in multiple bruises and lacerations surrounding the boy’s body. Peterson publicly admitted that he did discipline his son because he pushed his brother while playing video games (Bonesteel, 2016). Abuse is defined as the “knowing, intentional, negligent” harmful punishment given to a child and physical abuse refers to hurting the minor with “objects that leave marks” (Cauffman, 2018). Peterson’s acknowledgment about the incident reveals the "knowing and intentional" aspect that is found in

However, Peterson did inflict physical abuse against his child because he used a tree branch (object) to discipline his son which causes bruises and lacerations on the boys’ arms, legs, buttocks, and back (marks). If Peterson did not use an object and inflict physical harm and instead spank his child, this case would have been a corporal punishment case. Peterson’s actions were extreme and using an object such as a tree branch was unexceptional. I strongly believe that there is a fine line between discipline your child and inflicting harm for punishment. There should be a change in the court’s standard in identifying when discipline is truly abused on the child, including physical, emotional and neglect. First, the courts should closely monitor the number of times that child has experienced physical, emotional, and neglect abuse within the three months. It’s important that the abuse against the child is consistent and not a one-time offense. Almost all parents have disciplined their child in one form or another including yelling or spanking them. In fact, approximately ninety-four percent of parents in the U.S. has spanked their child (Cauffman,