Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-206 (2020)
Endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree
-
- A person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree if he or she knowingly engages in conduct creating a substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or mental welfare of another person known by the person to be a minor.
-
As used in this section, “serious harm to the physical or mental welfare” means physical or mental injury that causes:
- Protracted disfigurement;
- Protracted impairment of physical or mental health; or
- Loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
- Endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2408; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2408; Acts 2005, No. 2207, § 2.
Publisher's Notes. This section was formerly codified as § 5-27-204.
Cross References. Employment in certain places and occupations prohibited, § 11-6-101 et seq.
Research References
ALR.
Parents' criminal liability for failure to provide medical attention to their children. 118 A.L.R.5th 253.
Criminal Liability of Nonparent for Failure to Obtain Medical Treatment for Minor Based on Duty of One Acting in Loco Parentis. 97 A.L.R.6th 539 (2014).
Criminal Prosecutions and Civil Actions for Leaving Child in Unattended Hot or Cold Vehicle, 26 A.L.R.7th Art. 5 (2018).
Case Notes
In General.
The offense of endangering the welfare of a minor does not encompass allegations of sexual misconduct, and should not be used as an alternative to sexual offense charges. Leheny v. State, 307 Ark. 29, 818 S.W.2d 236 (1991).
Evidence of Abuse.
Permitting an eight-year-old child to develop a severe case of trench foot is a form of neglect by the parent and such neglect of a child's physical needs is necessarily a form of abuse; hence, a father's perpetration of child abuse by neglect is relevant to a case of sexual abuse against that same child, when both forms of abuse are occurring at the same time. Such evidence is pertinent in that it establishes an intentional pattern of abusive behavior on the part of the parent toward the child — the first by neglecting her basic hygienic needs and the second by soliciting her to engage in sexual activity. A contemptible lack of caring for a child's essential healthcare needs easily intertwines with sexual abuse of the child; both forms of abuse are intentional and evidence of the lack of care, concern, and respect for the child's well-being is admissible under Evid. Rules 403 and 404(b). Lindsey v. State, 319 Ark. 132, 890 S.W.2d 584 (1994).
Evidence Sufficient.
Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for endangering the welfare of a minor because defendant admitted that he forced one child to perform oral sex on him while the other child sat in the back seat, and in his statement to police officers, defendant indicated that he was aware of what he was doing and that the child was in the back seat. Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375, 266 S.W.3d 696 (2007).
Trial court did not err in refusing to direct the verdicts where defendant took actions to conceal the harm to the child, and failed to take action to secure appropriate care for the child; the jury could conclude that defendant rubbing a substance known to cause skin irritation on the face of a toddler where Superglue had already adhered would cause, at the very least, the impairment of physical condition or a visible mark associated with the physical trauma. Price v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 664, 344 S.W.3d 678 (2009).
Instructions.
Refusal to give the defendant's requested instructions that a parent was not guilty of violation of the law where he merely used bad judgment in the discipline of his children, or that the punishment inflicted upon the child was merely excessive or immoderate held not error. Wood v. State, 248 Ark. 109, 450 S.W.2d 537 (1970) (decision under prior law).