Dad Charged For Not Using Enough Sunblock On 12-Year-Old

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.local6.com/news/3349031/detail.html

A man has been charged with child abuse for not applying enough sunblock to his 12-year-old son before a day at the beach.

A man is charged with abuse for not using enough sunblock on his child.

The boy was severely burned as a result, authorities said.

Walter McKelvie Jr., 43, of Vineland, was indicted Tuesday and charged with one count of child abuse and neglect in the July 20 incident, in which he took his mentally disabled son to the beach in Wildwood.

The son, identified only as R.M., suffered large, bleeding blisters on his back and face. Authorities were alerted by the boy's mother, who has custody of him but was not with him at the beach, according to Assistant Cape May County Prosecutor Meghan Hoerner.

[kimchi]

1. You've got to be shitting me.

My mom is probably thankful to be dead about now. I once got burned really bad at the pool when I was about 9. I don't remember ever putting on sunblock back then. In fact, I don't think we had it. We had "suntan lotion", which was probably factor 5 or something.

Global climate change must be a boon to Coppertone.

[republicansareevil]

7. But we know better now.

As a child I didn't wear a seat belt, I didn't use strong sunscreen, relatives smokes around me, etc. But parents today are expected to do better. You have to admit that bleeding blisters indicates a pretty severe sunburn. And we don't know how highly functioning this 12-year-old is. What if it had been an infant who was so badly burned? The child may not be much more advanced than an infant. I don't necessarily want to see this father go to jail - we really don't know all the facts here. But at the very least he showed poor judgement. He claims he put on some sunscreen, but who knows? He might have slapped a bit on the kid's shoulders and then ignored the boy the rest of the day while he checked out the hot women on the beach. Or he might have carefully applied sunscreen to the child but not realized how strong the sun was or not noticed that the sunscreen wasn't waterproof... but for this degree of burn, it's hard to believe the father was really being attentive. I see no problem with the authorities getting involved to find out what really happened. Perhaps the father just needs some help with his parenting skills. Or perhaps he does need to go to jail. Who knows? If it were my child, I'd be pretty upset - no reason to assume the wife is just being vindictive.

[kimchi]

20. You are absolutely right; the father was negligent.

I am just afraid (and I think justifiably) that these prosecutions are opening up huge cans of worms. Parents make mistakes; sometimes big ones. I can't shake this suspicion that in the future a broken arm or a burned leg could result in jail for a parent. We can't know what the situation was; but in any event I highly doubt that the wife was being vindictive, nor that the dad was malicious--but that it was a mistake of ignorance or forgetfulness-neither of which deserves jail time.

If it were my husband or ex I'd certainly be enraged; but I think parenting classes would make the punishment better fit the crime.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

[axollot]

77. Parents today should know better

...however, we are especially ignorant about sunscreen in this country. Having raised my boys in Australia it was beat in to your heads how unsafe the sun is and how sunscreen needs to be worn at all times outside, not just a day at the beach or swimming pool.

I have to agree with you here and say No this dad shouldn't go to jail, yes he probably did put on sunscreen - but how many people know that sunscreen, even not washed off by getting into the water still only has a few hours of half life. This kid playing in the water made it come off faster.

Ive seen lots of mum's n dad's put sunscreen on when they first get to the beach or pool then forget it the rest of the day.

Another point this child could be very white (as one of my sons and myself is) but dad could be olive skinned (as my eldest son and their father is). If he is lacking in knowledge about sunscreen and doesn't suffer from burns himself I can see how easily a day at the beach can turn into a nightmare sunburn. On the other hand for a burn to be so bad it bled and blistered, well he would have seen the beginnings of that while still at the beach in the sun. That is the neglectful part.

Yes this guy should be reprimanded for neglect, let off on the abuse charge (not like he willingly set out to hurt his son at the beach that day is it?). He needs to polish up the parenting skills for the year 2004 now doesn't he?!?
Cheers
Sandy - stepping down from her soap box!

[Dulcinea]

14. Agreed.

Yet another example of the nanny state in action.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. are you mentally retarded?

this kid needed better supervision, unless the idiot dad went home and compared his bleeding blisters with his son's.

[kimchi]

48. Are you? WTH does MY mental state have to do with this?

People are acting like this man WANTED to hurt his child. I'd think even a moran like this guy could figure out a better way than a sunburn.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I don't understand why the father didn't pull the kid into shelter after

he saw the skin turn lobster red, etc.

I got a third-degree burn (replete with a scab 2" x 2") on my arm when I was 2 years old and then two second-degree burns (with huge blisters on my chest) when I was 6 & 7 years old. I have fair skin, etc. and you would think after the first time, I'd be protected with more vigilance.

[progressivebydesign]

3. Oh God! I didn't know we had Sunscreen laws!

This is just ridiculous.. can you say "spiteful ex-wife?". I remember taking my 8 year old stepdaughter to the beach one day.. she used sunblock.. but was in and out of the water. She went back to her mother's house with a bit of redness... The mother went ballistic, insisting the child (who was not in any discomfort) take aspirin, go to bed early, and take a cool bath... I'm sorry this kid got a sunburn so badly.. but the Dad USED sunscreen... This is just excessive... and yet people are allowed to smoke in the car with their small children, and have cigarettes dangling from their mouths while they hold their children... duh.

[republicansareevil]

34. Stop using your own experience to judge this one.

The boy didn't have "a bit of redness", he had bleeding blisters. Please focus on the facts that we know instead of injecting your own experiences into the story.

[NashVegas]

62. Spend Much Time on the East Coast Beaches?

The sun that strong works in minutes, not hours, and it does a number on your eyes, as well. Even with sun glasses, it's hard to see a bad sunburn before the damage is done.

That doesn't prove anything, just that one shouldn't draw immediate conclusions about this just yet.

[republicansareevil]

69. Who's drawing the conclusions?

The people I see drawing conclusions are mainly those who are saying the police should never have been involved. The people who believe as I do that the state has not overstepped its authority are the ones I mostly see taking a wait-and-see attitude.

[Bridget Burke]

4. The police were informed by the ex-wife...but it is serious.

It appears that concern for the child may not have been the only motive for calling in the authorities. But severe sunburn in childhood appears to increase the risk for melanoma later in life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1554086.stm

Skin cancer in general is nothing to ignore. A delay in seeing the dermatologist can result in considerable loss of tissue--often on the head, which can have unattractive results.

But melanoma is worse than the others. It can metastasize. That is, if a small mole is removed & not biopsied, the cancer can appear elsewhere in the body later--if it's melanoma. In these cases, the prognosis is not good.

[Wilber_Stool]

5. I'll bet

that most of us here over 40 would have been taken away from our parents if they had rules like this when we were young.

[coyote]

6. This is bullshit

I remember when I was 10, I was at the beach for 6-7 hours without any sunblock with my father and brother. I couldn't go to school for 2 weeks because I was so burnt.

In any case, if they had taken my father away because of that, it would have been far mor tramatic than any sunburn I ever had.

I am sorry, the US is totally fucked up. I am so happy I live in Europe now.

[duvinnie]

8. let's get this terminology straight

not enough sunblock applied = abuse
raping/beating helpless prisoners = abuse

methinks its the english language that's being abused
nowadays.

[saigon68]

16. raping/beating helpless prisoners =interrogation

interrogation performed = MEDALS AND ADULATION

</sarcasm>

[duvinnie]

31. i like it

...and of course

medals and adulation = hero status
hero status = enter politics = more adulation
...

sad isnt it?
we send nuns to prison for holding up the truth,
and the worst war criminals get to run the country.

[lojasmo]

9. Neglect, absolutely

Abuse, possibly. This guy is certainly an idiot, and has no place caring for a severely disabled child.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. Make his visitation supervised

but jail? For not applying enough sunscreen? Nah.

This is a case for social workers or family court, not the prosecutor.

[RememberTheCoup]

11. At what point can a social worker intervene?

Don't the police always have to be involved at the early stages? I may be mistaken, but I thought that was the case. Can anyone fill me in?

[Mandate My Ass]

17. No problem with the police being called

but as someone stated above there are no sunscreen laws, AFAIK.

The police responded correctly but this smacks of overzealous prosecution. It is appallingly bad judgement on the dad's part and it's horrifying to think of a mentally disabled child suffering such unecessary pain but that doesn't make it criminal. If stupidity was a crime...well, we all know the punchline to that one.

[NashVegas]

63. Hey! Why Not Charge Both Parents?

If they hadn't divorced, Mom probably would have been right there on the beach with him and made sure the kid was lathered up, right?

[onehandle]

12. It's Bush's fault!

This can be the only reason for this sad, but minor story being posted in LBN.

[KansDem]

13. I wonder if the "mentally disabled" label might have contributed...

to the harshness of the indictment?

Not to say that this is an excuse, but I wonder if the court might have considered that the child needed extra care and attention, resulting in an even greater responsibility for the father to see to his safety and security. Perhaps the court would have considered a "mentally competent" child as one who could have warned his father about oncoming stinging and pain, or who could have made an attempt on his own to avoid further sun, etc...

There simply isn't enough information in this article to conclude anything substantive...

[w4rma]

15. Draconian. (nt)

[rexcat]

18. It seems to me he had the right intentions by

applying sunscreen, but obviously not enough. I think the prosecutor is going too far with this. Seems the ex-wife still has issues with her former husband. I really feel sorry for the kid!

I had second degree burns when I first moved to Florida beacuse I stayed out too long at the beach but still had to go to work. I was in the Air Force at the time and if I would have gone to sick call I would have been given an Article 15 (loss of pay and rank). I worked with some real assholes. So I put on my heavily starched hospital whites and suffered for a couple of weeks. Also from working in a hospital in Cocoa Beach I saw my fair share of 2nd and 3rd degree sunburns (we had a bus load of kids from PA on the beach for the day and I think about 15 were admitted to the hospital for severe dehydration. These types of burns, and any burns for that matter, are very painful.

[AP]

21. In criminal law, you need to have criminal intent. This story leaves out

key points.

He never would have been convicted of a crime if this was an accident.

The prosecutor almost definitely had evidence that the guy wanted his son to get burned.

[rexcat]

23. From the story it appears that he has been charged

for abuse but I didn't see that he had been convicted or for that matter been to court yet. I sat on a county grand jury for four months and the prosecutors liked to go after sensational headlines, anything to to get their names in the paper. To me this is another case of prosecutorial abuse.

[RememberTheCoup]

24. It may or may not be prosecutorial abuse.

We don't really know the facts, do we? We don't even know for certain that the father applied any sunblock at all. That is also merely a claim.

What if the father felt squeamish or embarrassed rubbing lotion on the son's body so he just squirted a bit on the son's back but didn't make sure the son was well covered? Some mentally disabled people can't speak or really do anything for themselves. If that was what happened here, prosecution doesn't seem excessive. The result need not be jail time - it could be parenting classes, supervision required for visits, etc. It could be nothing more than a stern lecture from the judge, which could still do some good and maybe get the father to use his brain a little better next time.

[Nevernose]

33. The TV station got it wrong

It was child neglect, not child abuse, but your avergae TV reporter isn't usually concerned with pesky little details like "facts" or "accuracy."

See my post #32 below for the FL statute.

[gratuitous]

19. Okay, first, allegations aren't proof

This guy isn't sitting on death row somewhere. Bleeding blisters? Sounds like some level of intervention is called for.

Second, I have confidence that the man will be allowed to mount a full defense of himself and his actions before a judge or a jury. Unlike, say, Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon attorney who was held incommunicado for two weeks based on an FBI agent's say-so.

Third, the Bush administration will provide the finest lawyers to defend the man, because the very idea that the sun could blister a child's body is just preposterous! See? I can go outside, and come back in. See any blisters? It's junk science in the courtroom designed to throw the public into hysterics, thinking there's such a thing as global climate change or a greenhouse effect or something. I fully expect Ted Olson will file an amicus curiae brief.

[sendero]

22. I hope the jury...

... sends these IDIOT prosecutors a message:

"a reasonable mistake does not equal child abuse"

[RememberTheCoup]

25. What makes you think it was a reasonable mistake?

Lots of people here are assuming they know the facts, when not much info has actually been provided. Suppose you had a mentally disabled child in a special school. Suppose the class went on a field trip to the beach and your child came home with bleeding blisters that required medical attention. The person in charge of your child claimed sunscreen was applied but apparently it was just not enough. Would you say "That's ok, it's a reasonable mistake" and let it go? Or would you want some investigation done? And aren't healthcare workers required by law to report any suspected child abuse? And don't the police have to be involved first before social workers enter the picture? That was my belief and no one on this thread has provided any other information about how such things work.

[Mandate My Ass]

26. It is not the role of the justice system to assuage our outrage

To classify behavior as a crime requires demonstration of intent to inflict harm in addition to the commission of a offense that exists in the criminal code of a particular state.

A sin of omission (failing to apply enough sunscreen to prevent injury) fails in both of those criteria, IMO.

Should the authorities have been called? Definitely. But the prosecutor is overreaching here.

[republicansareevil]

27. What if this had been an infant?

What if your nanny had taken your baby out in the sun and left him out there till the baby had bleeding blisters? Or what if the nanny didn't feed the baby all day? Isn't that also a sin of omission? I'm not going to argue the law with you because I have no legal background, but what you're saying just doesn't seem right. When a mentally disabled child is left with bleeding blisters, it doesn't seem outrageous to me for the law to become involved. I don't understand what everyone's problem is here. And if you're saying it's not wrong that the authorities were called, why are you so offended that the prosecutor is actually following up? Do you have more information about this case than I do because it seems like you're reacting more to your own experience than to the facts of this case, most of which are not know to us.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. I assure you I have no experience in this area

and I am as outraged at this father's stupidity and negligence as any thinking, feeling human being would but -- I repeat -- stupidity is not a crime.

You can make up all the hypothetical situations about nannies hurting my denfenseless babies you want, it doesn't apply to the facts described in this case. Show me a criminal statute anywhere that says you must anticipate and prevent injury to a minor.

I'm sure the prosecutor is hoping and praying to get people who have no legal background but lots of outrage for the poor mentally disabled boy to serve on the jury so it can railroad this guy. After that what's next on their agenda, scraped knees and sniffles?

[republicansareevil]

30. Well, you're certainly making a lot of legal arguments...

...for someone with no legal background. Isn't there such a thing as criminal negligence? Wouldn't it be a crime to neglect to feed a helpless, hungry baby? You act as if the situation I presented is some great stretch when it is actually very close to what actually happened: a non-custodial parent allowed a mentally disabled child (of unknown functionality -- he could have been as helpless as any infant for all we know) to develop a sunburn severe enough to cause bleeding blisters. That sounds to me like a matter for the police. The father claims he used sunscreen but that is not an established fact. And I do expect parents to anticipate and prevent injury within reason. Parents shouldn't let their children climb tall trees, for example, because the child could fall and be injured. Parents shouldn't let their children approach and pet strange, growling dogs. And a father should not let a mentally disabled child remain in the sun unprotected and unwatched so that the child develops such a severe sunburn. Even accounting for the fact that sunburns keep developing after a person is out of the sun, there must have been at least some indication that the child was starting to burn.

[AP]

36. I think (but am not sure) that the only times negligence (recklessness)

can result in a crime with 2nd degree murder. You'd have to check state law.

FL's child neglect stature requires intention. The parent has to intend the harm.

[Bridget Burke]

28. How do you "call" the authorities but make no charge?

The guy probably doesn't deserve jail time but he seriously needs to talk to a judge. Parenting classes have been mentioned as a possibility.

[troublemaker]

66. You would complain to the school and maybe sue the school

But it's not a criminal matter. It's a negligence/injury type case. I cannot believe how many times in this thread 'negligence' is used as a synonym of 'criminal intent' (not blaming RememberTheCoup who does not do this)

[Nevernose]

32. It was child NEGLECT, not child abuse

And even that is "iffy." It seems to depend upon what the definition of "serious injury" is (I don't think a sunburn -- even a really bad one -- is what the legislature had in mind when they used the phrase "serious injury", seeing as how it is used in conjunction with the phrase "substantial risk of death"). Also up for grabs is what "culpable negligence" means.

Personally -- and this is purely speculative -- it seems to me that the woman is preparing to take her ex-husband back to court. Four out of five child abuse/neglect cases (at least in my area) are filed by angry ex-spouses, and are rarely as bad as they are made out to be.

(1) "Child abuse" means:

(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or

(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



(3)(a) "Neglect of a child" means:

1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or

2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.

[AP]

35. It must be intentional. I'm sure they have evidence of intent or they...

....wouldn't waste their time.

If they don't, they're crazy.

But the key is evidence of intent and looks like a lot of people are presuming there isn't any.

[republicansareevil]

38. Are you sure there has to be intent?

If you get drunk and forget to feed your baby for 12 hours, is that okay because you didn't "intend" for it to happen?

[AP]

39. The statute is above.

The intent requirement is "knowingly/willfully"

It's the highest intent requirement there is.

Drunk driving laws use the transferred intent to get drunk for the knowing/willfull requirment. I doesn't look like this one does, but I don't know FL criminal law.

So, no, if you intend to get drunk and then neglect your child, it doesn't look like you can be convicted of child neglect. Perhaps there's another statute that would cover that.

[republicansareevil]

47. Wrong state.

This happened in NJ and that's a FL statute.

Look, I'm just a regular educated person who gets most of my legal knowledge from Law & Order and Judging Amy, but at least I have my common sense, which a lot of you seem to have discarded in favor of flawed intellectualism. And my common sense tells me that if you fail to feed a hungry baby for a long period, that's a crime...in any state. I'd bet my last dollar. And my common sense also tells me that if you let a mentally disabled boy bake in the sun until he gets bleeding blisters, that that's also arguably a crime. So, I'm not going to get roped into a lot of silly legal arguments with people on here who are either lawyers or like to play lawyer. This father made a huge mistake and the law should be involved, and you're not going to convince me otherwise unless you come up with something a lot better than statutes from unrelated states.

[Nevernose]

52. So starving babies are the equivalent of a bad sunburn? n/t

[republicansareevil]

55. You can die from a "bad sunburn."

And a baby who isn't fed on schedule isn't necessarily "starving" as in "starving to death". But it becomes uncomfortable for the baby. I don't think a child's life should have to be in danger before the law gets involved, but sunburns can be life-threatening if severe enough.

What if a father had left a baby out in the sun to get bleeding blisters? Would you still say the law doesn't need to be involved? This child may have been as helpless as any infant.

[AP]

57. So facts and the law mean nothing to you?

[republicansareevil]

59. Not what I said.

We don't have many facts - just what's in the article. And as for law... well, all I've heard so far is a lot of legalistic mumbo-jumbo from people who can't even get the state right, trying to tell me that black is white and up is down. If someone with some real legal knowledge can come on here and explain to me how a father letting his mentally disabled son develop bleeding blisters because he didn't protect him from the sun or notice that he was starting to burn is an inappropriate matter for the courts... then maybe we can have a real discussion about the law. I suppose it's possible that in some backward state, a parent can't be charged with endangering their children if the parent didn't intend for the child to be harmed -- after all, who would have thought that any state allowed mentally disabled children to be sent to the electric chair? -- so I'll remember to "never say never", but I would be very surprised if this was the case in NJ. I'm not saying the father is necessarily guilty or should automatically go to jail. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as the possibility someone pointed out that the son was on some medication that accelerated the sunburn. But people on here who are saying the law has no business stepping in here -- I just can't buy that.

[Nevernose]

60. You've been arguing the law as well

And you didn't get the state right, either.

Let he who is without sin, and all that jazz...

[republicansareevil]

67. I didn't get the state wrong, and I haven't been arguing the law.

I made one post (#37) where I questioned your interpretation of the statute (and it really was questioning more than an arguing). I didn't notice at that time that the statute you posted was for the wrong state. I have been trying to avoid making specific legal arguments because I don't want to go beyond what I know. I can still read, though, which is why your interpretation of that statute seemed incorrect to me - not because I'm a legal expert but because what I was reading didn't seem to match what you were saying... not that it mattered in the end anyway. It's a simple mistake that you got the state wrong; I don't want to harp on that. My bigger problem is the people on this thread who are insisting this is none of the state's business.

[AP]

61. It's funny to call the law mumbo jumbo when that's what the issue is here.

The law.

Look up the NJ statute if you want to see what the law is. Everything else is mumbo jumbo.

It's alos funny that you say, bring me an omniscient to tell me about the father's actions, and we can talk about the law.

[republicansareevil]

68. Why don't you look up the NJ statute yourself?

I think it is the state's business when a father lets a mentally retarded boy get such a severe sunburn that he gets bleeding blisters. It doesn't seem any different to me than a parent forgetting to feed a baby for some time. That's all I'm saying. I guess some people might call that a legal argument; I wouldn't. I'm not making a specific argument as to which law applies or what statute was violated - just that it is the state's business and not unlike other situations that most people would consider neglect. And I reject the notion that the father is off the hook if he didn't intend for the boy to get sunburned. I guess some people might call that a legal argument as well. I just call it common sense.

What I see on this thread is that the people who believe the police should be involved are being generally cautious, not saying the father is automatically guilty, or that they should lock him up and throw away the key. Those are the people who are generally willing to wait for more facts. On the other hand, it seems to me that the people who say the police should not be involved are the ones who are mostly acting as if they know exactly what happened. Some comments:

"ridiculous"
"nanny state"
"People are acting like this man WANTED to hurt his child"
"Oh God! I didn't know we had Sunscreen laws!"
"This is bullshit....the US is totally fucked up"
"this smacks of overzealous prosecution"
"Stupidity is not a crime"
"Draconian"
"To me this is another case of prosecutorial abuse"
"I hope the jury sends these IDIOT prosecutors a message: 'a reasonable mistake does not equal child abuse'"

...and so forth. Those are the comments I object to. No, there aren't "sunscreen laws," but you are expected to show reasonable judgement and prudence to protect your children from avoidable injuries. And not one person has had the guts to answer this: would you still feel the same way, if the father had left an infant outside long enough to develop bleeding blisters? Everyone is taking the father's word that he did apply sunscreen, but there is still no evidence of that other than his word. He may have or he may not have.

And I never said "bring me an omniscient to tell me about the father's actions" -- I don't even know where you got that from. I can't discuss this in specific legal terms because not one person has cited any relevant law or raised any applicable legal arguments to support their claim that the state went too far by becoming involved in this case.

[AP]

75. Because it's a waste of time. If you want to pay me for my labor, I'll...

...do it.

But I know what it says. It's probably exactly like the FL statute: I'm sure it requires an knowing and willfull intent to cause injury.

[axollot]

78. To drunk to feed baby

..IS neglect. You committed an act that knowingly or unknowingly caused harm to the child. You didn't just put the kid in a dumpster say and walk off, that would be abuse.

Neglect isn't something to brush off. It does not necessarily mean the person has committed a lesser crime than one who has committed one of abuse. It is just defined differently.

EXAMPLE... I spanked my child a little to hard causing minor bodily injury or mark, scar etc on the child.
I then could be charged with child abuse.

I (and i will use your analogy here) got drunk, passed out and did not attend to my baby causing serious risk of health to that child. I could then be charged with criminal neglect.

Who do you think does jail time here?

cheers
Sandy - de lurking if only for a moment
PS I would like to add that I personally do not like the over zealous involvement into parents lives by the state, it scares the living s*** out of me personally. However, there are times such as these that warrant it. Does every sun burnt child need the state involved hell no!

[Nevernose]

41. No, they charged him with "neglect"

They charged him, according to the article, with "one count of child abuse and neglect."

Since there doesn't appear to be a crime in Florida called "child abuse and neglect" I would assume that the charge is actually just neglect. Sloppy reporting, in all likelihood.

Although it is entirely possible that the father intended to sunburn the child intentionally (I've seen stranger behavior), it's not very likely.

Little known fact: many states (such as mine), especially ones that are not very progressive, leave their child abuse and neglect laws intentionally vague, so that parents can use whatever discipline they feel like; the magical point when poor parenting turn into abuse/neglect is left entirely up to the CPS staff, DA's office, and judge.jury. The vagueness of FL's statute would seem to imply something similar, though the only lawyer I know from Florida is a contract lawyer, so I don't have anyone to ask.

[republicansareevil]

44. Why are you talking about FL law? This was NJ. (nt)

[Nevernose]

46. *red faced*

I saw the station was in Florida, and they were talking about the beach, and just, kinda, well...

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

{in my best voice of a petulant child} Well you were talking about Florida law too!

Would you like me to look up the Jersey statute? It's probably pretty similar, though NJ is more progressive than Florida, so they may be more specific

[republicansareevil]

37. Can a mental injury result in death?

It says "serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death"

Just because the phrase "serious physical...injury" occurs in the same sentence as "substantial risk of death" does that mean the lawmakers were thinking of only injuries that can lead to death? A mental injury can't lead to death, can it? If you let your young child climb a tall tree and the kid falls and breaks an arm is that not neglect since a broken arm isn't life threatening?

I wish people on this thread would just use a little common sense and stop attacking the mother here. I'd be pretty angry too, if my mentally disabled child came home with bleeding blisters. The father claims he used sunscreen, but then how did the child wind up so severely burned? This wasn't just a little redness. Didn't the father notice the boy turning red? This seems like a no-brainer to me. Isn't there anyone on this thread who is willing to say that what the father did sounds like neglect? I'm willing to allow that there may be extenuating circumstances, and I am aware we don't have all the information. But why is everyone just assuming this is just a spiteful "ex" instead of a justifiably angry mother who loves her son and is upset that he will be in such agony and at an increased risk now for melanoma?

No one's saying let's lock the father up right now. But let's at least look into it.

[Nevernose]

45. MY impression of this thread

was that most people were ganging up on the father. Perceptions, eh?

Clearly, the "substantial risk of death" portion does not apply to mental injuries. It could be, however, applied to physical injuries, and I think that any defense attorney (and most judges) will see it that way. I imagine the phrase is actually included for things such as drunk driving, substance abuse of the parent, and actual physical abandonment -- all things which are serious. Most sunburns are not serious.

Of course letting a kid get burned that badly is neglectful. But is it criminally neglectful -- felonious in fact -- and justifying 18 months in prison? I don't think so. I was never arguing that what the father did wasn't wrong, just that it wasn't criminal.

[republicansareevil]

49. 18 months was the maximum, right?

They said "if convicted, McKelvie could (emphasis mine) face up to 18 months in prison."

[jpgray]

42. Ridiculous. He used sunblock, yet intended for his kid to sunburn?

That seems to be a contradiction. Was he using cooking oil instead of sunscreen? Come on, people--dad puts sunscreen on, kid sunburns anyway, dad goes to jail on the charge that some criminal intent was involved?

:crazy:

[republicansareevil]

50. He CLAIMS he used sunblock.

We don't know it for a fact. Did the father get bleeding blisters also? If not, why not? Did he use more sunblock? Did he sit in the shade? Did he not go in the water? Is he just not as fair-skinned as the boy? Those are questions it would be nice to know the answers to. I suspect most children, even younger children, would not get such a severe sunburn because they would go to the shade when they got too hot. A person who remains out in the sun long enough to get bleeding blisters seems like someone who is either physically helpless or mentally helpless. Or possibly both. If so, the father should have been paying better attention.

[jpgray]

51. Yep, you're right--article didn't qualify its statements properly

In that case, I'd say we have way too little information about this to properly judge this guy. Obviously he showed very poor judgement, but if the child is capable of corroborating his father's story about the sunblock application, I don't see this as criminally negligent, despite the severity of the sunburn.

[PeaceProgProsp]

54. If he intentionally didn't use enough, it might be a crime.

Check the NJ satute. The issue isn't whether he used enough. The issue is what he intended to do. Was he willfully hurting the kid? That's the issue.

[republicansareevil]

56. I still say it doesn't have to be intentional

That was a FL statute, btw, not NJ. But my common sense still tells me that it doesn't have to be intentional. If you get drunk and leave your child unattended for several hours and something bad happens to the child, my gut instinct is that any state would consider that criminal negligence or something similar, regardless of whether you intended for your child to be injured or intended to pass out drunk. What if you forget and leave your child strapped in a carseat in a car and the child dies? Are you off the hook because you didn't intend it?

[K8-EEE]

43. Bleeding Blisters? This Is Not Just A Sunburn...

That's really bad...really negligent. Just because he's 12, if he's disabled, he could be 1-1/2 on a congnative level.

[1monster]

53. Possibly, folks, the kid could have had a reaction to the sunblock or has

developed a case of sun allergy. I live in Florida (I realize that this incident took place in NJ) and worked in a drug store near the beach for ten years.

I saw loads of cases of sun poisoning with similar symptoms and reactions to sun block (rash and redness, irritation) from people who had not been out in the sun very long (less than an hour) and who had used sun block.

Also, certain medications can cause extreme sun sensitivity. It might be interesting to know if the child had been on any medication.

My stepson once developed huge bleeding sores on his skin after being out sun for a short time (they lived on the beach). Turns out that he was on medication which when mixed with being in the sun, caused the skin to burn very quickly and very badly.

I reserve judgement on whether this was neglect on the father's part, or something else altogether.

[genius]

58. Good. Maybe parents will start sunblocking their kids.

There are people in danger of dying because their parents didn't udnerstand the need for sunblock when they were young. Maybe this will call attention to the problem.

[troublemaker]

64. You don't use the criminal law to "call attention" to things

at least in a decent society you don't

[doc03]

65. Here is a similar case of sunburn and the results

http://news-register.net/news/story/0520202004_new2parents.asp

This woman was arrested for the same thing a couple years ago and
wingnut radio talk show host Mike Gallagar talked about it. When Gallager found out the Sheriff that charged her was a Democrat he went nuts claiming this was liberals trying to tell people how to raise their children. Well read the story and see what happened this last winter, one of the kids died from the parents smothering him to death.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

70. which is why I hear things like this and go ballistic

geez people!.... The poor mentally disabled kid had fucking bleeding blisters!

[RamboLiberal]

71. I remember that case well - thanks for posting the followup

Looks like the Sheriff knew that what he was looking at was child abuse. Too bad someone apparently didn't listen and now a child is dead.

[doc03]

72. One thing you can bet on," wingnut Mike Gallager" never followed

up on it and told the rest of the story. Two years ago he was all over the bleeding heart liberal Sheriff. I remember when Gallager first talked to the Sheriff on the phone he seemed to be on his side
until he found out he was a Democrat then he turned against him.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

73. I'd love to see that shoved in his face

and then his gutless reaction.

[doc03]

74. He is like all the wingnuts, if by chance someone gets past his screener

that disagrees with him he shouts them down then doesn't give them a chance to respond.

[FlaGranny]

76. Not to get too far off base, but

you can see a sunburn with blue-blocker sunglasses BEFORE you can see it with the naked eye. More than once I've warned someone that they were starting to burn before there was visible redness (without the blue-blockers).