Let's start with what our Prosecutors say is wrong with the current law. Let's find the loopholes:
“Ohio Revised Code 2919.22(A), states in relevant part that "no person, who is the parent of a child under eighteen years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support." R.C. 2901.01(H) defines "substantial risk" as "a strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote or significant possibility, that a certain result may occur or that certain circumstances may exist."
“Parents have a legal duty to protect their children from harm. State v. Sammons (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 460, 463, 391 N.E.2d 713. The crime of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(A) may be committed by acts of omission: "an inexcusable failure to act in discharge of one's duty to protect a child where such failure to act results in a substantial
risk to the child's health or safety is an offense under R.C. 2919.22(A)." State v. Kamel (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 306, 309, 466 N.E.2d 860.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that R.C. 2919.22(A) requires proof of a culpable mental state of recklessness as an essential element of the crime of child endangering. State v. McGee (1997), 79 Ohio St. 3d 193, 680 N.E.2d 975, syllabus. R.C. 2901.22(C) provides that a person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause
a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.
Lets focus on this last paragraph - the Ohio Supreme Court says that a "mental state of recklessness" is "an essential element of the crime." This does not seem to be based on anything actually stated in the ORC. Perhaps this "opinion" can be negated by providing a different definition of "recklessness," or removing the requirement of "recklessness."
How about simply adding to the second paragraph that a mental state of recklessness is NOT required to prove carelessness?
Should the law only cover situations where the child is harmed, or should it cover the POTENTIAL for harm?