(a) Every person having the custody or control of any child under the age of eighteen
(18) years who shall abandon that child, or who shall treat the child with gross or
habitual cruelty, or who shall wrongfully cause or permit that child to be an habitual
sufferer for want of food, clothing, proper care, or oversight, or who shall use or
permit the use of that child for any wanton, cruel, or improper purpose, or who shall
compel, cause, or permit that child to do any wanton or wrongful act, or who shall
cause or permit the home of that child to be the resort of lewd, drunken, wanton,
or dissolute persons, or who by reason of neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, or depravity,
shall render the home of that child a place in which it is unfit for that child to
live, or who shall neglect or refuse to pay the reasonable charges for the support
of that child, whenever the child shall be placed by him or her in the custody of,
or be assigned by any court to, any individual, association, or corporation, shall
be guilty of a felony and shall for every such offense be imprisoned for not less
than one year nor more than three (3) years, or be fined not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or both, and the child may be proceeded against as a neglected child
under the provisions of chapter 1 of title 14.
(b) In addition to any penalty provided in this section, any person convicted or placed
on probation for this offense may be required to receive psychosociological counseling
in child growth, care and development as a part of that sentence or probation. For
purposes of this section, and in accordance with § 40-11-15, a parent or guardian practicing his or her religious beliefs which differ from general
community standards who does not provide specified medical treatment for a child shall
not, for that reason alone, be considered an abusive or negligent parent or guardian;
provided, the provisions of this section shall not: (1) exempt a parent or guardian
from having committed the offense of cruelty or neglect if the child is harmed under
the provisions of (a) above; (2) exempt the department from the provisions of § 40-11-5; or (3) prohibit the department from filing a petition, pursuant to the provisions
of § 40-11-15, for medical services for a child, where his or her health requires it.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case:
State v. Stewart, 663 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995).
State v. Stewart, 663 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-9-5, lacked a mens rea element, and additionally, that count 2 of the indictment, which served as the predicate to the felony-murder charge in count 1, was defective because it did not track the language of the child-neglect statute.”
State v. Lopez-Navor, 951 A.2d 508 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “This case came before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2008, on appeal by the defendant, Rosalia Lopez-Navor (Lopez-Navor or defendant), from a judgment of conviction entered in the Family Court upon a jury verdict of criminal neglect of a child, in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-9-5.…”
Ibarra v. Holder, Jr., 736 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2013).
“060 (Baldwin, West-law through 1996 legislation); 24 Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-9-5 (Michie, Westlaw through 1996 legislation) 25 ; West Virginia: W.”
In Re Victoria L., 950 A.2d 1168 (R.I. 2008).
“3, and Lopez-Navor was charged with cruelty to or neglect of the child under § 11-9-5, for failing to protect him. The DCYF investigation also disclosed that Raul and Lopez-Navor were in the United States illegally; the United States Department of Immigration and Naturalization…”
In Re Alexis L., 972 A.2d 159 (R.I. 2009).
“3, and Lopez-Navor was criminally charged with cruelty to or neglect of the child under § 11-9-5 for failing to protect him. The police and DCYF investigations also revealed that, DeRosas and Lopez-Navor were in the United States illegally, which led the United States Department…”
Walden III, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island, 442 F. Supp. 1168 (D.R.I. 1977).
· cites it 2× “nd other property of “plaintiff” and caused the children under “his care” to be removed and “dispersed” or taken into “custody”; that Plaintiffs Mark Dorfman and Lisa (Bryan) Dorfman were arrested or caused to be arrested by Defendants and/or their agents “and charged in the…”
In re Rita F., 64 A.3d 1220 (R.I. 2013).
· cites it 2× “In her brief, the respondent’s appellate counsel also represented to this Court that during this time, respondent visited her children, until March 17, 2010, when a no-contact order was entered because a felony complaint was filed against her for three counts of criminal neglect…”
State v. Charette, 434 A.2d 280 (R.I. 1981).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-9-5, “Cruelty to or neglect of child.”
State v. Boucher, 468 A.2d 1227 (R.I. 1983).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-9-5; (2) failing to report a known or suspected incident of child abuse, a violation of G.”
State v. Strom, 941 A.2d 837 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 3× “1 Facts and Travel The State of Rhode Island (state) appeals from a Family Court order 2 dismissing a criminal information that was filed against defendant Linda Strom (defendant) charging her with cruelty to or neglect of a child in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-9-5. 3 The…”
State v. Brittany Michaud (R.I. 2021).
· cites it 4× “1 General Laws 1956 § 11-9-9 was amended effective June 18, 2018, vesting the Superior Court with jurisdiction over violations of § 11-9-5. See P.L. 2018, ch. 44, § 1. The defendant’s trial took place in 2017, prior to this amendment.”
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.