Child neglect in the second degree
Source:
Section 163.545 — Child neglect in the second degree, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors163.html.
Notes of Decisions
Legislative intent is clearly that this section compliment ORS 163.555 (criminal nonsupport) and reach two different types of conduct, so where defendant left child unattended in car, causing death, defendant’s acts of omission were subject to prosecution under this section rather than ORS 163.555. State v. Rosen, 38 Or App 107, 589 P2d 1132 (1979)
Where defendant’s husband had history of violence toward her and her children and she had been warned by case worker that his presence around children was risky, leaving their child in care of husband while she performed brief errand was not sufficient evidence of criminal negligence necessary to support conviction under this section. State v. McLaughlin, 42 Or App 215, 600 P2d 474 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
Since this section provides fair notice of conduct it forbids and proscribes only conduct which constitutes gross deviation from normal standard of care, it is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Mills, 52 Or App 777, 629 P2d 861 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Though sanitary conditions of defendant’s home were deplorable, defendant’s leaving child with older brothers and sisters for one to two hours while grocery shopping did not constitute leaving her “unattended.” State v. Forcum, 58 Or App 5, 646 P2d 1356 (1982)
Where defendant left children alone in house at night to attend party at tavern, adults who lived in house were cigarette smokers and matches and candles were lying around and children died from house fire there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of child neglect under this section. State v. Goff, 297 Or 635, 686 P2d 1023 (1984)
For defendant to be guilty under this section, there must be sufficient evidence of both factual elements of endangering welfare of child and mental state or culpability element. State v. Goff, 297 Or 635, 686 P2d 1023 (1984)
Offense requires proof that: 1) leaving child unattended was likely to endanger health and welfare of child; 2) risk of harm occurring was substantial and unjustifiable; and 3) defendant’s lack of awareness of risk of harm was gross deviation from normal standard of care. State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265, 97 P3d 691 (2004)
Where child is left with caregiver who either is irresponsible or otherwise would not attend to child’s needs, child is “unattended” as used in this section. State v. Walker, 296 Or App 1, 437 P3d 275 (2019)
Where child was inadvertently left at occupied restaurant and restaurant patrons and employees assisted child, child was not “unattended,” as used in this section, because “unattended” means left without person present or left with person present, if person is irresponsible. State v. Montgomery, 315 Or App 231, 501 P3d 1089 (2021)
Child is not “unattended” for purposes of this section if left with responsible person, even if defendant did not know that person was available to care for child. State v. Montgomery, 315 Or App 231, 501 P3d 1089 (2021)
Up to date