CAPE MAY, N.J.—A man has been charged with child abuse for not applying enough sunblock to his 12-year-old son before a day at the beach. The boy was severely burned as a result, authorities said. Walter McKelvie Jr., 43, of Vineland, was indicted Tuesday and charged with one count of child abuse and neglect in the July 20 incident, in which he took his mentally disabled son to the beach in Wildwood. The two were on the beach from about 10:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The son, identified only as R.M., suffered second-degree burns that left large, bleeding blisters on his back, chest and shoulder...If convicted, McKelvie could face up to 18 months in prison. "In my 13 years in this office, we've not prosecuted a single case like this," said Johnson. "It is solely the severe nature of the injuries suffered by this victim that has caused the prosecution in this case.So is it a crime? Is it now so apparent that leaving a child 7.5 hours in the sun uncovered without sunblock is stunned that it is a crime. Makes sense to me, now having regular doctor's visits to check for skin cancer where the blisters were thirty-odd years ago.
Associated Press copy from today's unlinkable Toronto Star.
Comments
Nils Ling - May 27, 2004 11:46 am
I think the two keys here are 1) that he was charged with "child abuse and neglect" (as opposed to simply child abuse) and b) that his son was mentally disabled (and presumably not able to make decisions/take actions for himself).
"Child abuse" conjures images of active involvement, whereas "neglect" is more passive. I'd say anyone who leaves a mentally disabled kid out to bake in the sun is at least as neglectful as if he'd left the kid in a hot car to dehydrate while he was in some bar gambling.
We would have no qualms about prosecuting one; why not prosecute the other?
SayNay? - May 27, 2004 8:23 pm
Under Canadian law, would dumb ass be "criminally negligent"?
see Canadian Criminal Code subsecion 219(1): Every one is criminally negligent who,
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition of "duty", in subsection(2): For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.
SayNay? - May 28, 2004 1:43 am
Apparently, this is not the first time a parent has been charged in the States for "sunburn crime" See: www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/21/sunburn.charges/