Different reports read differently, so the story does change. I think after reading everything it was implied to the mother and she inferred she would be jailed because of her past arrest for the truancy. Now if it was only implied and not outright stated the mother was wrong to allow the paddling to go on. She could have said “stop” at anytime and I am pretty sure they would have had to stop. But again what was actually said to her is not known.
Well, what does the principal say about it? She had a phone with video, does she ask him to re-iterate the implication or however/whatever he supposedly said to her to make her think she was going to be arrested if she didn’t go along with it?
Freegards