The line between lawful parental discipline and criminal conduct can be a legal tightrope—especially when the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) is involved. The recent Appellate Division decision in State v. Franck A. Amang provides critical guidance for family law and child welfare attorneys navigating this delicate terrain. This decision reinforces and expands upon the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. A.L.A. and underscores the importance of proper jury instructions when a parent is charged with assault when disciplining their child.
Corporal Punishment Is Not Presumptively Assault
In New Jersey, non-excessive corporal punishment is not illegal. However, when such discipline results in criminal charges or DCP&P involvement, the court must clearly distinguish between permissible parental discipline and unlawful force. In Amang, the jury specifically asked whether “non-excessive spanking/beating” could constitute simple assault if the child felt pain. The trial court declined to provide a direct answer, instead repeating the standard simple assault jury instruction. The Appellate Division deemed this failure to clarify the legal standard a reversible error. The court made clear that when a jury requests clarification on a legal issue, the judge must resolve the confusion, not simply reciting boilerplate law. In this case, that meant explaining when parental discipline crosses the line into criminal behavior.
This case has meaningful implications for child welfare matters, particularly when DCP&P intervenes in response to physical discipline. As family law practitioners, here are the key applications:
Lesson 1: Affirm the Legality of Reasonable Discipline
Not every physical act by a parent is abuse. When DCP&P or the court assumes otherwise, Amang provides a strong foundation to argue that reasonable, non-excessive corporal punishment is legally protected.
Lesson 2: Demand Specificity in Allegations
Push DCP&P to clarify whether they are alleging excessive force or simply corporal punishment. The defense—and ultimately the court—must distinguish between the two.
Lesson 3: Use Expert Testimony Thoughtfully
Experts in parenting norms and child psychology can provide critical context, especially in culturally sensitive cases or where physical discipline is normative within certain communities.
Lesson 4: Be Strategic at Adjudication
At the adjudication phase, emphasize that without clear evidence of excess, DCP&P’s claims may not meet the legal threshold for abuse or neglect.
Lesson 5: Anticipate Criminal Exposure
Many DCP&P cases are tethered to criminal charges. If a simple assault charge arises from the same conduct, ensure that if there are criminal charges, your client has criminal counsel to defend them. Criminal counsel will ensure the jury (or fact-finder) receives tailored instruction on the legal status of corporal punishment, as both Amang and A.L.A. require.
The Bottom Line for Practitioners
State v. Franck A. Amang is a powerful reminder that the law in New Jersey still recognizes a parent’s right to discipline their child—within reason. For family lawyers, it reinforces our responsibility to advocate for clarity and fairness when parental conduct is mischaracterized as abusive or criminal.
