The court considered the endangerment statute in question and held that a violation of the statute required criminal negligence. The court found no criminal negligence.
Yes, it is. It’s also completely nothing like what happened in this case. Did you read the OP?
That’s part of my question … whether an infant is at serious risk of harm at 54 degrees under the facts stated and whether that risk of harm is or should be enough to make a crime out of what happened.
The root of my inquiry is really whether the prosecutor knows it is just “sending a message” to dumb parents by charging these idiots or if the prosecutor really thinks it has enough to convict these idiots. I can see where these idiots can be potentially let off the hook under criminal law, but I still think they are unfit idiots.
I’m trying to reconcile the “leaving the kids in the house” case with the car case. In the house case, the youngest child was 2 years old. In this case, the child was only 7 weeks old. Wonder if that’s something to hang a hat on.
Bear in mind, it was 54 degs outside. It is going to be a lot different temperature *inside *a closed up car.
The other thing that could happen is that someone could break into the car, to steal something other than the baby. Maybe the radio, or they thought the diaper bag was a purse. Then the baby’s in a car with a broken window.
Not saying it’s likely, but if you’re looking for things that could happen in a parking garage that’s one of them.
The house case is from 1961, when expectations were likely somewhat different than they are today. Also note that a home is generally considered a secure location–passing strangers can’t just walk in. A car in a parking garage is less secure, and likely to have considerable foot traffic in the vicinity, plus people under the influence of various substances.
From this discussion, it looks like the prosecution might have enough ammunition to make a case of it to get some kind of plea bargain, but it’s uncertain whether the risks of harm in this case are substantial enough to get a conviction if it goes to trial.
I think the germane point isn’t a laundry list of what could happen, but the simple fact that a seven week old baby is completely helpless, and needs its parents to protect it or to be left in a situation where you can reasonably expect it to be safe (its crib at home, etc.). The only way to get the point across to some people of what they are expected to do is to make not doing it criminal.
I would say that citing this: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06_7/vc15620.htm it would likely be illegal to leave the child in the car due to the cold and young age of the child being a risk to its health.
I remember looking this up when I had a baby, because a few times I locked the car and dashed 20 feet into the gas station to pay (if I could see the car through the window at all times) if the baby was sleeping.
Nice link, thanks. Here’s the statute:
The bold part is the same issue raised in the OP though. Are the facts given sufficient to to be a “significant risk to the child’s health or safety?” How so? That’s the gist of the thread.
Well, that’s the thing. Is the interior going to get too hot for the baby? Too cold? Or will it stay in a nice middle range, for 2.5 hours or more, where the baby is not at risk either of hypothermia or overheating? Because if it doesn’t, nobody’s in a position to save the kid.
Or, as others have pointed out, the kid could choke on anything from a corner of his blanket to his own vomit.
Rather than go for exhaustiveness, the point, as Cat Whisperer said, is that infants are helpless, and vulnerable in ways that even a toddler isn’t, let alone an adult.
If they have such low regard for their child, I’m sure there are thousands of couples who would LOVE to adopt the kid.
From the article linked:
When my kid awas an infant, I would never leave him in a car with all of the doors closed even if I was standing next to the car with the keys in my hand. To get him out of the back seat, I’d open my door, get out, open his door, get him out, close his door, and then close my door.
Paranoid? Maybe. But it’s good procedure. Baby is never alone in closed car - ever - under any circumstances.
The article is about the tragedy of people who accidentally leave a baby in a car. Not people who leave a baby in a car on purpose to go gamble.
I just read this, and wanted to thank you for posting it. It was a very moving story, extraordinary really.
The article is irrelevant in that the car in the OP was not in the sun. It was 8 pm.
Seven weeks? A baby that age needs to eat about every 2 - 2 1/2 hours. At that point he’d probably been without food for three hours if they fed him immediately before they left home. And who knows how much longer they planned to leave him in there? Hunger probably won’t cause permanent damage but it could and probably would lead to desperate crying, which could lead to choking or vomiting. And the flailing that goes with it could very easily get him tangled up with blankets or straps and hurt him that way.
I know these are kind of worst case things, but isn’t that why small ones have bigger people to keep an eye on them? So they don’t get into those situations?
I agree babies are helpless and need protection, but I would think the state would have to actually identify a significant risk of harm in this case if it is going to convict someone of criminal negligence or endangerment. I doubt it will be enough to simply say “babies are helpless” without identifying some significant risk of harm in this case that this baby was helpless from.
At that age, in my opinion, simply leaving the baby alone for two and a half hours, under any circumstances, is a risk to the child’s health and safety. They simply cannot be left alone that long.