Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:93.2.1 (2026)

A. Child desertion is the intentional or criminally negligent exposure of a child under the age of ten years, by a person who has the care, custody, or control of the child, to a hazard or danger against which the child cannot reasonably be expected to protect himself, or the desertion or abandonment of such child, knowing or having reason to believe that the child could be exposed to such hazard or danger.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§93.2.1. Child desertion

A. Child desertion is the intentional or criminally negligent exposure of a child under the age of ten years, by a person who has the care, custody, or control of the child, to a hazard or danger against which the child cannot reasonably be expected to protect himself, or the desertion or abandonment of such child, knowing or having reason to believe that the child could be exposed to such hazard or danger.

B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of child desertion shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

(2) On a second and subsequent conviction, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned for not less than thirty days nor more than six months, at least thirty days of which shall be without benefit of probation or suspension of sentence.

Acts 1986, No. 370, §1; Acts 2003, No. 168, §1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2012 · leading case: United States v. Vaughan, 58 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Vaughan, 58 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 2003). · cites it 2× ““ La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:93.2.1(A)-(B)(1) (1998).”

State v. Small, 100 So. 3d 797 (La. 2012). “to a hazard or danger against which the child cannot reasonably be expected to protect himself,” or the desertion of such child "knowing or having reason to believe that the child could be exposed to such hazard or danger.”

State v. Hamilton, 677 So. 2d 539 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “14:89 in 1993, child desertion, a violation under LSA-R.S. 14:93.2.1 in 1992, and crime against nature by solicitation, a violation of LSA-R.”

State ex rel. S.F., 802 So. 2d 791 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “was charged with child desertion, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:93.2.1, for which she was later convicted and incarcerated in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center (JPCC).”

State v. Jones, 742 So. 2d 597 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 14:93.2.1, provides in pertinent part as follows: A.”

Newchurch v. Louisiana State Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 713 So. 2d 1269 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “14:93, R.S. 14:93.2.1, R.S. 14:93.3, R.S. 14:106, R.”

Newchurch v. La. State Bd. of Educ., 713 So. 2d 1269 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “14:93, R.S. 14:93.2.1, R.S. 14:93.3, R.S. 14:106, R.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:93.2.1(A) — 1 case

United States v. Vaughan, 58 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 2003). ““ La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:93.2.1(A)-(B)(1) (1998).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.