Appeals Court Says Bruises Not Essential for Proving Child Abuse

On Tuesday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released an opinion holding that bruises on a child aren't necessary to prove child abuse. In the instant case a Fridley woman had claimed her conviction for child abuse should be overturned because of the lack of bruises - or proof of having hurt the child.

She had simply shaved the head of her 12-year-old daughter and forced her to wear diapers for poor academic grades. For her, that wasn't child abuse but providing incentive to her child for working harder. The courts disagreed.


The opinion of the appeals court mentioned that a conviction for malicious punishment of a child can be substantiated only upon emotional or mental injury and does not need proof of physical harm.

The woman had been convicted at the Anoka County Court for a single gross misdemeanor, where the police were called up by neighbors who found the girl running outside in a diaper and with her head shaved, while a gathering of onlookers stood by.

When contacted, the girl's mother had told the media that she was simply disciplining her child by embarrassing her and didn't understand the concern of the police or the media. The girl's stepfather also supported the woman's views and said the girl had been previously warned that if she didn't manage to get better grades at school she would be forced to wear diapers and have her head shaved.

Anyway, the law didn't see things from the perspective of the guilty and the stepfather received six months in jail to contemplate upon the matter of discipline.

The woman received 90 days.

However, the woman appealed arguing that the 'malicious punishment' statute was vague and only applicable to cases of physical abuse or physical harm.

Writing for the appeals court, Judge Edward Cleary clarified that the law does not contain any language that makes proof of bodily harm mandatory and the statute clearly states that its provisions may be attracted where there is "unreasonable force or cruel discipline that is excessive under the circumstances."

And in this case, the opinion observed, "A person of ordinary intelligence would be on notice that such an act constituted cruel discipline that was excessive under the circumstances."

The only reference to bodily harm in the statute relates to an upper limit as to whether the offense should be considered as a felony child abuse, or as a gross misdemeanor.

The appeals court observed, "The extreme nature of her conduct, which included shaving her 12-year-old daughter's head, forcing her to wear a tank top and diaper, and requiring her to run around outside in front of a crowd of people that included classmates and adults, is demonstrated by the reception this humiliating spectacle received - the gathering of a large audience and multiple 911 calls to report the incident."