Today's Honolulu Star-Advertiser carries a story on the Hawaii Supreme Court's opinion in Hamilton v. Lethem, No. SCWC-27580 (Feb. 7, 2012), the case in which we successfully represented a father who challenged the lack of standards in "show cause" hearings in Family Courts under the Due Process Clause. The court held that Family Courts must consider a parent's claim that the force he or she used on his or her child was permissible discipline and not impermissible abuse; the opinion set forth standards for the courts to analyze such claims.
The S-A story, "High court clarifies discipline defense" notes, "'I think it's a good ruling,' said Thomas Farrell, who last year was chairman of the Family Law section of the Hawaii State Bar Association. 'There was a lack of clarity in the law, and it does seem to me that a parent has a right to use reasonable discipline on a child and shouldn't be the subject of a restraining order for doing so.'"
It also has my thoughts on the larger implications of the ruling:
Robert Thomas, lawyer for a father who contested a restraining order in the case that led to the ruling, said it represents "a good day for freedom, especially among Hawaii's parents, children and families."
He said the court "strongly affirmed" the constitutional rights of parents "to keep the government out of their families and for parents, and not the state, to control the behavior of their children."
As I've mentioned before, this obviously was not a typical case for this blog. But we do take appeals in other areas of law presenting unsettled or untested questions, and this was one.
