I previously blogged about the general elements of Endangering the Welfare of Children. Now, I want to go into some cases that are important and that a Lehigh criminal lawyer should know.
First, know that a failure to act may equate to a parent "knowingly" endangering the welfare of their child, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 357 Pa. Super. 38 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). In this case, Appellant mother was convicted in the municipal court of endangering the welfare of her child in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4304, based on evidence that she had learned that her husband had sexually abused her daughter over a period of years and was continuing to do so, yet she took no meaningful action to end the situation for at least nine months. On an appeal from the denial of a writ of certiorari by the court of common pleas, the court affirmed and held that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child was a specific intent offense that required a knowing violation of a duty of care; however, evidence of intent could be derived from omission or from acts so feeble as to be ineffectual. The court found that appellant's response consisted of writing two notes, which clearly showed her awareness of the situation, and making some indefinite preparations to leave. Appellant failed to report the abuse, to stop the abuse, or to remove her daughter from the situation. The court held that a parent's duty to protect her child required affirmative performance to prevent harm and that appellant's failure to act amounted to knowing endangerment.
Here is another case regarding a parent where their 13 year old become pregnant. The commonwealth appealed from the order that granted appellants' motion in arrest of judgment that followed their conviction of endangering the welfare of a child under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4303. The court affirmed. The court held that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the commonwealth, with the proper inferences drawn in the commonwealth's favor, was not sufficient to prove that the appellees endangered the welfare of their child. The court held that § 4303 required that a parent intentionally violate a duty of care, protection, or support. The court held that merely establishing that appellees' 13-year-old child had engaged in sexual activity with her boyfriend and had become pregnant was not sufficient to establish a violation of the statute by appellees. The court held that even the parents' knowledge that their child was sexually active was not sufficient to impose criminal responsibility under § 4303, which was a specific intent crime. The record indicated appellees had not condoned or encouraged the activity, and appellee mother was aware of the sexual activity but was encouraging marriage. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 398 Pa. Super. 116 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)
The intent element is critical gin in the case of Commonwealth v. Fewell from 1995. In this case, Appellant was convicted by a jury of endangering the welfare of a child under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4304. Appellant's four-month-old son died of asphyxiation after appellant covered his head in a plastic grocery bag, which was initially ruled an accident by the police. Appellant later confessed to her psychiatrist that she intentionally placed the plastic bag over her son's head to stop him from crying. Appellant later repeated her confession to the police and was arrested and charged. Appellant contended that the trial court erred when it denied her pre-trial motion for habeas corpus relief, when it admitted her statement to the police at trial prior to the state's proof of corpus delicti, and when it allowed the psychiatrist to testify in violation of the psychiatrist-patient privilege. The court affirmed the trial court's decision and ruled that because appellant was found guilty of the crime any defect in the preliminary hearing was immaterial. The court also held that although the psychiatrist violated appellant's privilege, the error was harmless because the psychiatrist 's testimony was merely cumulative of appellant's confession to the police, which was properly admitted. Commonwealth v. Fewell, 439 Pa. Super. 541 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)