In a sharply reasoned opinion issued April 9, 2025, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a domestic violence injunction that had been entered against a father for physically disciplining his 14-year-old daughter. The ruling in Bechert v. Bechert, No. 4D2024-0951, reaffirms that reasonable and non-excessive parental discipline does not constitute domestic violence under Florida law.
Background: A Family Dispute Becomes a Legal One
The case began with serious allegations. The mother filed a petition for a domestic violence (DV) injunction on behalf of the daughter, claiming the father punched, kicked, and sat on her during an altercation on New Year’s Eve 2022. However, the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, child protective investigators, and a key neighbor’s testimony told a much more restrained story. No physical injuries consistent with the petition were observed, and video evidence contradicted many of the allegations.
At the heart of the dispute was the father’s attempt to confiscate his daughter’s cell phone after discovering she had marijuana and a vape pen in her backpack. During the struggle, the daughter broke the father’s finger. He, in turn, forcibly took the phone. This incident formed the basis of the mother’s DV injunction request.
Trial Court Grants Injunction—But With Reservations
Despite calling the mother’s allegations “terribly exaggerated,” the trial court issued a six-month injunction, citing the daughter’s fear and the need to ensure she felt “secure.” Notably, the court made no finding that the father had a history of abuse, nor did it determine the physical discipline was excessive. The judge emphasized the daughter's unease in reconnecting with a largely absent parent, not physical harm, as the foundation for her fear.
The father appealed.
Fourth DCA: Fear Alone Isn’t Enough
On appeal, the Fourth DCA focused on a critical distinction: discipline is not domestic violence if it is reasonable and non-excessive. Citing precedent from the First DCA (G.C. v. R.S., 71 So. 3d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)) and its own prior rulings (Moore v. Pattin, 983 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)), the appellate court reiterated that Florida law and common law tradition recognize a parent’s right to impose physical discipline—so long as it is not abusive.
In this case, the father’s conduct did not rise to the level of battery, aggravated assault, or any other statutorily defined form of domestic violence. At worst, the court found he physically “wrenched” the phone from his daughter’s grip. No significant bruising or disfigurement was shown, and the daughter’s own fear stemmed not from prior violence, but from unfamiliarity and emotional distance.
In short: an emotionally charged parenting moment, however tense, is not the same as domestic violence under Florida law.
Why This Case Matters
This ruling is a win for due process and parental rights. Had it gone unchallenged, the DV injunction—though expired—could have had lasting collateral consequences for the father, from limitations on firearm ownership to damage to his reputation and potential implications in custody proceedings. The court reversed not just for the sake of the record, but explicitly because such injunctions carry lasting legal weight.
More broadly, Bechert reaffirms that trial courts must separate emotionally driven fears from legal definitions. Judges cannot substitute subjective discomfort for the objective legal standard of domestic violence. Fear, no matter how sincere, must be grounded in actionable, unlawful conduct.
Final Takeaway
The Bechert decision underscores a key principle in Florida family law: parental discipline, when reasonable and proportionate, is not abuse—and should not be criminalized through misuse of domestic violence statutes. The opinion also serves as a cautionary tale about the potential misuse of injunctions in emotionally fraught custody contexts, especially when children are caught in the middle of contentious co-parenting dynamics.
As family law and domestic violence jurisprudence continues to evolve, this ruling draws a necessary boundary between protection and overreach—and ensures the law respects both the child’s well-being and the parent’s rights.