Chapter 11 - THE LAW DOESN’T CALL IT TRADITION
Child protective authorities reviewed the repeated confinement.
The facts mattered.
Short durations.
No physical injury beyond minor scrapes.
No food deprivation extending beyond the immediate meal.
No threats of serious harm.
Still:
A child repeatedly locked from the outside in a dark pantry as punishment.
The agency did not call that family tradition.
It called it inappropriate and unsafe isolation.
My mother faced misdemeanor child-endangerment-related charges.
My father too, based on directing and endorsing the conduct.
Their lawyers negotiated.
Neither went to prison.
Probation.
Mandatory family-violence and elder-parenting education.
No unsupervised contact with my daughter.
No disciplinary role.
No access to child-care decisions.
The pantry incidents were documented.
Some relatives thought this destroyed family dignity.
I thought locking a five-year-old behind a padlock had done that already.
My father never forgave the involvement of authorities.
Not immediately.
He said:
“You brought outsiders into family discipline.”
I answered:
“You made family discipline unsafe.”
May you like
Same argument.
Different century.
