Florence v. U.S.
N/AOUTCOME: Conviction overturned
906 A.2d 889 (DC 2006) This case proves that I will put your interests ahead of my own personal preferences. Sadly for me, it deals with the use of a weapon to discipline a child. I ... am opposed to corporeal punishment. But when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals asked me to represent Selenna Florence, I set my own feelings aside and fought hard to reverse Ms. Florence’s conviction. Fought and won! Here is what happened: Selenna Florence is a petite woman. Her 11-year old, 269-pound daughter Amber, not so much. Ms. Florence went to a lot effort to set up an appointment at Georgetown University Hospital’s clinic for people with eating disorders. It happened that by the day of the appointment, Amber got ahold of food her doctors forbade to her. She proved absolutely unwilling to part with the food. Worse, she refused to get ready to go to for the appointment. Ms. Florence tried several things to coax Amber out of her stubborness, but to no avail. Unfortunately, Amber became violent. It was awful. Ms. Florence was angry with Amber, but she was also concerned about how out of control Amber was and felt time pressure to get Amber ready to go to Georgetown. Push literally came to shove, and Ms. Florence found herself with a hair curling iron in her hand – cold and unplugged, luckily enough. Amber tried to get the curling iron away from her mother, the two tussled, and Ms. Florence hit Amber with the curling iron. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia convicted Selenna Florence of simple assault and attempted second-degree cruelty to children. In doing so, the court took a narrow view of the law allowing parents to use reasonable force to discipline their children. The court also ignored evidence that vindicated Ms. Florence. In my brief, I argued that though Selenna Florence was angry with Amber, that "in no way makes it impossible for her to also harbor an intent to discipline her child." I also argued that it was reasonable to use force, given how slight Ms. Florence was, how large Amber was, and how violent and unrule she was. In oral arguments, at the suggestion of my dear wife and law clerk, I pointed out that Ms. Florence didn't start out hitting Amber willy-nilly; instead, she went through a series of more and more forceful applications of pressure. So the Court of Appeals agreed that Ms. Florence was innocent. It did not matter that Ms. Florence was angry with her daughter. She did what she had to do to bring her daughter under control. It is not part of District of Columbia law that where a parent is trying to discipline a child and nothing else works, a parent may hit her child with something. I am not completely happy with this part of the law. I do not believe parents should use weapons on their children to get them to behave. Nonetheless, what matters more to me is that the Court of Appeals reversed Selenna Florence’s conviction.
