Parenting Has Its Day in Court

Painful. Intrusive. Unseemly.

Yet perversely fascinating.

Hearing about life inside the Machnick household in Yorba Linda, where the parents’ psychological war with their rebellious son now has them awaiting a jury verdict, was all those things.

It certainly wasn’t entertaining -- unless you get your jollies from other people’s miseries.

The key elements in the child-abuse case against Grady and Deborah Machnick: They kept their junior-high-age son out on the patio overnight at least 10 times; Deborah once put dog feces in his school backpack; she photographed him clad only in his socks; they awakened him dozens of times at 4 a.m. on school days.

I had lunch this week with a friend (and father of four) who knows those broad outlines of the case.

He said he didn’t need details: They’re guilty, he says, because of the psychological damage it must have done to the boy, who was 14 when he left home for good last year and moved in with friends nearby.

Perhaps it will be that simple for the jury, which has begun deliberations as I’m writing this. Somehow, I doubt it.

It’s the particular fascination of this case -- and the questions it raises about raising children -- that tempt me to predict that the Machnicks will beat the rap.

They’re charged with misdemeanor child abuse, stemming from the ongoing series of alleged incidents, and a felony count of conspiring to commit child abuse. I’ll bet prosecutor Pete Pierce a nickel he won’t get a guilty verdict on the felony count.

I won’t hazard a guess on the misdemeanor count, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see a deadlocked jury, with later reports of heated deliberations.

Shocking as that would be to my lunch pal, defense attorneys Sal Ciulla and John Barnett (representing stepmother and father, respectively) masterfully framed their closing arguments in ways that likely will have jurors debating both law and real life.

Barnett went first, referring to Machnick’s 25-year career in law enforcement and his job as a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department jail supervisor. So fearful was Machnick that his son -- described by Barnett and Ciulla as a habitual liar, thief and slacker -- would end up in jail that he and his wife went to unusual lengths to rein in his behavior before it was too late. Nothing worked, Barnett argued, and the tougher disciplinary techniques ensued.

During his two-hour argument, Barnett referred to the couple’s son (who was between 12 and 14 during the period in question) as “a train wreck,” “as cold, as calculated a liar as you will ever see” and “a very dark, dangerous boy.”

Ciulla followed Barnett to the lectern and, I think, also scored points. Referring to Deborah’s decision to put the dog feces in her stepson’s backpack, Ciulla said jurors might grade that an F as a parenting technique. “But it’s not a crime,” he argued. “You don’t get arrested for it. Did [the prosecutor] prove [the Machnick’s son] was emotionally affected by it? No. To [the boy], it was the same as no TV. It just didn’t matter.”

Barnett expressed indignation that the Machnicks risk a felony conviction. More than once over the years, I’ve written critically of the Orange County D.A.’s office for overzealous prosecution, but no such gripe this time.

Although Pierce minimized a number of allegations that lost steam during the trial, enough of the case remains to make the Machnicks’ behavior fair game for scrutiny.

As you can probably tell, this is a verdict I can’t wait for -- if only to see if the jurors see parenting the way my lunch pal does.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to [email protected].