With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". result in permanent disability or permanent disfigurement.’ See State v. McDonald, 785 So.2d 640, 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).” In King, this court reviewed the child abuse conviction of a school administrator who had paddled a child in conformity with an established school disciplinary policy. The parents of each child at the school had been informed of and consented to that policy. According to our opinion, the paddling left “significant welts and bruises on [the child’s] buttocks as a result of the paddling, but [the injuries] did not require medical treatment.” Id. at 955. We classified the paddling as “corporal punishment” and held, “[T]he spanking did not constitute felony child abuse as a matter of law.” Id. at 955, 956; see also State v. Figarola, 788 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). This case is obviously distinguishable on its

A: holding that fathers act of twice striking son in the face splitting his lip and forcing child to eat food as punishment for childs failure to eat the dinner father prepared and served was not felony child abuse as a matter of law
B: holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify
C: holding that plaintiff had not raised a triable issue of fact as to impairment of eating as substantial life activity where his diabetes required him to eat regular and small meals
D: holding that termination of fathers parental rights should be reversed since it was done to facilitate childs adoption and would prejudice rights of child and mother to receive support from father
A.