10 U.S.C. § 919b

Art. 119b. Child endangerment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person subject to this chapter—(1) who has a duty for the care of a child under the age of 16 years; and(2) who, through design or culpable negligence, endangers the child’s mental or physical health, safety, or welfare;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5429, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2949.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: United States v. PENNISSON (N.M.C.C.A. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. PENNISSON (N.M.C.C.A. 2024). “2 10 U.S.C. §§ 919b, 928b. 3 App. Ex. VI. 4 App.”

Shivananjappa v. Rajendra (D.N.J. 2021). “C § 3617 (Fair Housing Act cause of action); 10 U.S.C § 919b. Art. 119b. (child endangerment offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice child endangerment charge); 10 U.”

United States v. ROBERTSON (N.M.C.C.A. 2021). “2 10 U.S.C. § 919b. 3 See DoDI 6400.06, encl.”

<p data-block-key=\lzqzd\">U.S. v. PENNISSON</p>" (N.M.C.C.A. 2024). “2 10 U.S.C. §§ 919b, 928b. 3 App. Ex. VI. 4 App.”

United States v. Staff Sergeant DAVID K. MYERS (A.C.C.A. 2024). “MYERS — ARMY 20230100 BACKGROUND A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of child endangerment in violation of Article 119b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 919b [UCMJ]. The military…”

United States v. SIMON (N.M.C.C.A. 2025). “FINDINGS The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s findings to all of- fenses the convening authority referred to trial: Charge I: Violation of Article 119b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 919b. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.”

United States v. MAESE (N.M.C.C.A. 2025). “Were Appellant’s trial defense counsel ineffective when the defense failed to conduct any cross-examination of the child forensic investigator who conducted Sierra’s interview, failed to call its own expert to counter the 2 10 U.S.C. § 919b. 3 After findings were announced, the…”

In Re Cortney Austin v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025). “See 10 U.S.C. §§ 919b, 928. At the bill of review hearing, the trial court heard argument and took the matter under advisement.”

United States v. PORATH (N.M.C.C.A. 2025). “2 10 U.S.C. §§ 919b, 928b, 931b. The military judge found Appellant not guilty of one specification of wrongful possession of marijuana and one specification of obstruct- ing justice pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 917, and the members found Appellant not guilty of one…”

United States v. Sergeant STEPHEN CHILLURA (A.C.C.A. 2026). “An enlisted panel, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of child endangerment and two specifications of domestic violence in violation of Articles 119b and 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 919b,…”

United States v. WILLIAMS (N.M.C.C.A. 2026). “Additional Charge II: Violation of Article 119b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 919b. Plea: Not Entered. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.”

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.