In two decisions issued six weeks apart, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated convictions for attempted second-degree cruelty to children under D.C. Code § 22-1101(b)(1), prosecuted as attempts under § 22-1803.

In Akers v. United States, 357 A.3d 310 (D.C. 2026), decided May 28, 2026, the Court vacated the conviction. The facts: on March 9, 2023, Ms. Akers’s five-year-old son, T.A., was dropped off at her apartment by his father, Antonio Avery, who had received a call from T.A.’s school reporting misbehavior. Avery made a video recording of what followed. The recording captured roughly two and a half minutes of Ms. Akers yelling at T.A. in a loud voice, using profanity — telling him to shut F. up and to stand his ass up — while intermittently striking him on the legs with a lanyard. T.A. was crying and described by the trial court as hysterical throughout. Avery told Ms. Akers to stop hitting T.A. because he did not want the child to have physical damage; Ms. Akers responded that he was not going to have physical damage, he was going to have a severe mental one. She also told T.A. he would get his ass whupped again the next morning.

The statute: D.C. Code § 22-1101(b)(1) criminalizes the intentional, knowing, or reckless maltreatment of a child, or conduct causing a grave risk of bodily injury, prosecuted here as an attempt under § 22-1803. Under Alfaro v. United States, 859 A.2d 149 (D.C. 2004), maltreatment requires serious and extreme emotional or mental distress. The trial court found guilt on one of two counts. It acknowledged the government was not relying on the lanyard strikes themselves, which it characterized as parental discipline. Its theory rested on the verbal conduct: the tone, the profanity, the content.

It found Ms. Akers spoke to T.A. in a manner you would not even talk to a dog, constantly berating him, and that given his age, the language was incredibly excessive. It treated her severe-mental-damage remark as evidence of intent to inflict psychic pain and the next-morning threat as conduct that would leave a five-year-old in terror. It concluded this level of verbal abuse rises to the level of maltreatment, that the parental discipline was excessive and not reasonable, and sentenced her to one hundred twenty days suspended with one year of supervised probation. It acquitted on the second count.

The Court of Appeals reversed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), it held the act element was not satisfied. Two minutes of harsh scolding plus intermittent disciplinary commentary, even profane, did not constitute serious and extreme distress. The severe-mental-damage statement went to mens rea, which the court declined to decide, because mens rea cannot cure a deficient act. The conviction was vacated with instructions to enter judgment of acquittal.

In Wilson v. United States, 359 A.3d 861 (D.C. 2026), decided July 9, 2026, Mr. Wilson’s seven-year-old son, C.W., arrived at school with significant red marks on his upper left arm, spanning from near the shoulder to close to the elbow, and told staff his dad did it. C.W. and his sister had been caught stealing forty dollars from Mr. Wilson’s dresser; C.W. kept twenty. The trial court was unable to find how the marks were inflicted — belt, hands, or a plastic bat. It found Mr. Wilson acted with a genuine disciplinary purpose but concluded the marks created a very significant response, did not look like a one-grab case, and rendered the discipline unreasonable regardless of cause. It imposed a suspended sixty-day sentence. The statute is the same.

The Court of Appeals reversed on insufficiency. Under Lee v. United States, 831 A.2d 378 (D.C. 2003), and Florence v. United States, 906 A.2d 889 (D.C. 2006), corporal punishment is permitted within wide bounds, and transient marks or bruises do not by themselves defeat the parental discipline defense. The government bore the burden of proving unreasonableness beyond a reasonable doubt; it failed. The trial court’s inability to resolve the cause of the injury meant it harbored reasonable doubt. C.W. was matter-of-fact and smiling in a photograph; there was no swelling, no medical intervention beyond ice, no evidence the marks lasted past that morning. The theft was a serious transgression warranting deference, and C.W.‘s ADHD and scholastic challenges cut no particular way.

Combined, the two decisions tighten the government’s burden. Akers demands proof of serious and extreme distress, not merely harsh or inappropriate conduct. Wilson demands proof that marks or bruises exceeded reasonable discipline, not merely that they existed. The Court is not abandoning child protection; it is insisting the criminal statute reach only maltreatment, and leaving discipline that falls short — however ugly — to the parental-privilege framework rather than the penal code. That is a deliberate calibration: deterrence of true cruelty, not criminalization of imperfect parenting.

The parental discipline defense, rooted in the fundamental liberty interest parents hold in the care and custody of their children under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981), is receiving renewed and substantial weight. Prosecutors can no longer rely on the appearance of injury alone; they must demonstrate that the conduct itself crossed from permissible discipline into criminal maltreatment. These cases recalibrate the risk calculus in any cruelty-to-children prosecution arising from corporal punishment and underscore the importance of developing a factual record that isolates the precise nature, duration, and effect of the discipline at issue.

Refer to our Child Abuse & Neglect page for more resources. We specialize in high net worth divorce and related matters.