# Legal question: letting a child die **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 4, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399 "2005-02-04T17:58:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/1 "2005-02-04T17:58:18Z")
In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300631), a moral question is asked, but I’m more interested in the legal ramifications. While I, like **Bricker** in that thread, is unaware of any American law prohibiting what I’m about to describe, it just seems like some law is broken. The situation is this: I’m skiing in the Rockies or somewhere. A sudden avalanche, brought on by a mother of a blizzard, wipes out everyone in my ski resort except for me and a small child, let’s say three years of age. I have never met the child before and we have no blood relation whatsoever. The blizzard prevents help from arriving for a couple of weeks. There is plenty of food and drink, and no real risk to my life. If I simply do not feed this child and it dies before help arrives, have I broken any American law? If so, what is my crime? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/2 "2005-02-04T18:04:30Z")
Criminal neglect doesn’t come to mind? ---
**Author:** ![badmana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@badmana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badmana)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/3 "2005-02-04T18:06:12Z")
Legally (IANAL), I don’t think there’s any law forcing you to help anyone else, kid or otherwise, unless there was already a binding ‘agreement’ in place (as in, taking care of your own kid or a child you agreed to take care of). Are you actively holding the kid back though? Wouldn’t a 3 year old be able to eat on it’s own and do it’s own ‘thing’ for a while? I’d guess if you actively prevented the child from eating (by say, taking away their food) you might be breaking a law. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/4 "2005-02-04T18:06:48Z")
You might want to make your hypothetical child a bit younger – say, 3 months old. In my experience, the average 3-year-old knows how to find food and drink in a kitchen, and would feed itsel;f unless you actively prevented it (e.g., by locking up access, including access to taps in kitchen and bathrooms). So you’d have to take some positive steps to ensure that it starved ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/5 "2005-02-04T18:07:20Z")
Well, all the food is in a big fridge with a heavy door or something. Or maybe the child is younger. The point is that the child cannot make it on its own, and helping the child doesn’t endanger me at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/6 "2005-02-04T18:09:10Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Criminal neglect doesn’t come to mind? Well, let’s see. What, specifically, does the law against “criminal neglect” prohibit? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/7 "2005-02-04T18:17:11Z")
I suspect that after a couple of days, the child is going to be snatching food out of your hands unless you eat with a locked door between you and the kid. Barring it from access to all sources of food and drink would probably amount to false imprisonment, and false imprisonment leading to death by starvation would have to be murder. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/8 "2005-02-04T18:22:39Z")
OK, so it’s an infant and I have access to literally thousands of litres of breast milk and baby food. I also have enormous amounts of experience taking care of infants. Really, there’s little point beating various tiny aspects of the hypothetical to death. Am I committing a crime or not? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/9 "2005-02-04T18:23:18Z")
Oh come on. By being the only adult in the cabin you wind up effectively being the child’s guardian. At that point you’re responsible for the minor and so by not feeding or caring for the child you are willfully committing homicide through criminal negligence. Now I’m not a lawyer but from reading through [Consolidated Statutes of Canada](http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/) > [@](#): > > Duties Tending to Preservation of Life > > Duty of persons to provide necessaries > > 1. (1) Every one is under a legal duty > (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years; > (b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and > © to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person > **(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and > (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.** > [@](#): > > Criminal Negligence > 219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who > (a) in doing anything, or > (b) in **omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do** , > shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. > Definition of “duty” > (2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law. > [@](#): > > Homicide > 222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being. > Culpable homicide > (4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide. > (5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being, > (a) by means of an unlawful act; > **(b) by criminal negligence;** > © by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or > (d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person. Bolding is mine. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/10 "2005-02-04T18:28:39Z")
Now we’re getting somewhere! It’s Canada, not America, but since I’m in neither country I don’t care much; this is just a question out of interest. Here’s the relevant bit: 215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty © to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life. Now, does this child become “under my charge”, in the legal sense, when I’m the only adult left? Has this issue been tried? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/11 "2005-02-04T18:42:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Criminal Code > PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION > Kidnapping, Hostage Taking and Abduction > Abduction of person under sixteen > > 1. (1) Every one who, without lawful authority, takes or causes to be taken an unmarried person under the age of sixteen years out of the possession of and against the will of the parent or guardian of that person or of any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. > > Definition of “guardian” > > (2) In this section and sections 281 to 283, **“guardian”** includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person. Now I’m not sure how this applies outside of abduction, but if we reasonably extend the definition “in law or fact the custody or control” that might fit. ---
**Author:** ![badmana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@badmana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badmana)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/12 "2005-02-04T18:54:27Z")
No, that doesn’t work. **Priceguy** isn’t a kid’s ‘guardian’ just because the kid happens to be in the same location as him out of chance. I’m sure the law was specifically designed NOT to ‘extend the definition’ on purpose. It would then become illegal to ignore a crying kid on the street (because, if that kid were to later be harmed it could be YOUR fault). ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/13 "2005-02-04T19:02:54Z")
Not a good example since an adult on the street is not in control of the child through circumstances. A lone adult in an isolated cabin with a child would be. ---
**Author:** ![badmana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@badmana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badmana)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/14 "2005-02-04T19:14:16Z")
In this case, if **Priceguy** did not help the kid in any way (that might legally bind him) then he’s not responsible for the child. If the kid were to walk (by itself) to the cabin where **Priceguy** is holding up, there still isn’t any legal relationship until **Priceguy** takes any active roll in caring (or preventing care) for the child. Remember, this started as a skiing trip or something. **Priceguy** had no reason to think he was in any way responsible for this child. In this senario as long as **Priceguy** doesn’t ‘lift a finger’ for the child, he’s not responsible for it. It might not be morally correct but he’s legally in his right to ignore the kid and help himself. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/15 "2005-02-04T19:19:25Z")
> [@badmana](#): > > I’m sure the law was specifically designed NOT to ‘extend the definition’ on purpose. It would then become illegal to ignore a crying kid on the street (because, if that kid were to later be harmed it could be YOUR fault). A child crying in the street is not in danger of dying because of an unrelated adult’s neglect: the unrelated adult can assume that a parent or guardian will eventualkly find the child. A better example might be a child in imminent danger, with no other responsible person present. For example, I see a three-year-old alone on a railway line, and I know that a train is coming. Do I have a duty to save the child (e.g., by moving it off the track or warning the train driver) if I can do so with no danger to myself, and with little inconvenience? I suspect that I don’t have a legal duty to do so, even though I have a moral duty. ---
**Author:** ![badmana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@badmana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badmana)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/16 "2005-02-04T19:26:05Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > A child crying in the street is not in danger of dying because of an unrelated adult’s neglect: the unrelated adult can assume that a parent or guardian will eventualkly find the child. > > A better example might be a child in imminent danger, with no other responsible person present. For example, I see a three-year-old alone on a railway line, and I know that a train is coming. Do I have a duty to save the child (e.g., by moving it off the track or warning the train driver) if I can do so with no danger to myself, and with little inconvenience? I suspect that I don’t have a legal duty to do so, even though I have a moral duty. I agree. As I said (and I guess what the OP is asking) is strictly about the legal requirements. And the crying kid CAN be in danger (I added the crying part to add to the image of a kid in some sort of danger). For instance, if you passed a small child on the side of the highway wandering around, legally, do you need to stop and help? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/17 "2005-02-04T19:26:28Z")
The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring. ---
**Author:** ![badmana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@badmana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badmana)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/18 "2005-02-04T19:35:32Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring. No, that’s a moral requirement, not a legal one. The GD thread linked in the OP does go into the morality of this situation but as **Bricker** mentioned in the original thread, there is no legal requirement for one to help a stranger in any way. I doubt even Canadian law would force responsibility of someone else’s care without any action of your own (if this was [Priceguy\*\*'s home, it would be a different situation). ---
**Author:** ![madcossack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@madcossack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madcossack)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/19 "2005-02-04T19:38:14Z")
I believe that “Good Samaritan” laws would come into effect here. Although used sparingly or late in the USA, they have been around for quite awhile. Essentially, the adult would have an obligation to help the child, even if no other connection than circumstance came into play. Not much different than if you happen you happen upon the scene of an accident and render assistance to the injured. Although these laws were designed to protect people in the above example (accident) from being liable for harm caused by their good intentions, they have been used in the reverse, I believe, although sparingly as I mentioned, to prosecute people who did nothing in said circumstance. Also, leaping outside the purely legal box for a moment, I woould find it hard for a court, or jury, to ignore your ignoring of the child. Neglect would be very easy to convey, if nothing else from an emotional point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399/20 "2005-02-04T19:39:39Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring. From a legal standpoint, this is far from clear. Just because someone is in need, I don’t believe there is a legal requirement for any person to help even if that person is the only one who can help. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-letting-a-child-die/288399.md?page=2)