Restoring independence in child neglect law

In Connecticut, child neglect occurs when a child is denied “due care and attention.” However, the Act does not define what “appropriate” care or “adequate” attention may constitute. In Florida, parents can be liable not only for their own negligence, but also for another person’s negligence.

In a recent article, law professor David Pimentel argues that such broad state child neglect laws have led parents to become overprotective. According to Pimentel, this type of “helicopter” parenting has resulted in a decline in childhood independence, which has a devastating impact on children’s mental health. Recommends that lawmakers reform state child neglect laws to ensure reasonable child independence and promote situation-specific parental decision-making.

States have developed child neglect laws to protect children from abuse and danger. Although federal legislation provides guidelines for states to set child neglect standards, states have the right to create and modify their own legislation. As a result, states have different definitions and standards for child neglect, which Pimentel said are often vague and broad.

Under these ambiguous laws, parents lack a clear understanding of the legal risks they face, making them hesitant to rely on their parental instincts, Pimentel suggests. However, these regulations carry serious consequences for parents if they break them.

Pimentel argues that under these laws, parents are forced to adopt and maintain an overprotective parenting style, depriving them of the right to raise their children as they see fit. Some parents, especially low-income and single parents, are unable to provide the level of supervision required by these laws, which leaves them disproportionately vulnerable to state intervention, Pimentel notes.

Pimentel also highlights the adverse impact these laws can have on children’s well-being. Parental hypervigilance and children’s lack of engagement in independent activities correlate with mental health problems in children, including increased dependence on parents, inability to cope with life challenges, decreased empathy and immaturity.

In response to these concerns, some states have created laws intended to preserve children’s independence and provide parents with parental freedom. As of 2018, 13 states were considering such laws and four had adopted measures to comply with these rules.

Pimentel identified what he believes are the most effective features of these new laws to create recommendations for other states.

Pimentel proposes that states require a parent to be liable only for intentional acts that endanger the child. Most child neglect laws hold parents liable if they perform an action that endangers the child, regardless of the parent’s intentions.

An intent requirement would raise the standard for holding parents liable for child neglect, protecting parents who truly believed they were acting in their child’s best interests, Pimentel argues. Pimentel notes that the Texas statute adopted this element, requiring a parent to show a “gross disregard” for the child’s safety in order for the state to hold the parent liable under the statute.

Pimentel also proposes that lawmakers narrow the definition of negligence in statutes. Many statutes hold that exposing a child to “risk” amounts to child neglect. Pimentel points out, however, that “almost every parenting decision is an exercise in risk management that involves balancing risks.” For example, a parent’s decision to leave their child at home or take them to the pharmacy during a pandemic carries different but equally burdensome risks.

Specifically, Pimentel recommends that states adopt Texas statute language that replaces “risk” with “imminent danger.” By raising this standard, parents would be less susceptible to a range of decisions and actions that may fall across a wide spectrum of risks, so parents could feel more confident in making decisions for their children, Pimentel explains.

Pimentel also proposes that state lawmakers define a child’s ability to be independent based on his or her maturity and skills, rather than age limits. He argues that age limits are inherently arbitrary because children of the same age can demonstrate very different levels of responsibility.

Age-based standards neglect parents’ understanding of their child’s maturity and limit their assessment of the child’s capabilities, Pimentel argues. Rather, by taking into account a child’s individual situation, such as his or her maturity, physical condition and mental capacity, the law would better protect against true cases of neglect while giving parents the opportunity to make decisions in their child’s best interests, Pimentel suggests.

As more states consider changes to child neglect laws, Pimentel is making recommendations that he believes will empower parents, liberate children and unite a common goal: protecting children’s overall well-being.