1. So you are saying that one instance of neglect is sufficient to be classified as "persistent". How can that possibly be correct?
2. So you are agreeing with what I have said!? Neglect is a subset or type of abuse. How can you say I do not grasp a point when you have merely paraphrased what I have said?!?
3. And yet you are arguing, albeit from a position of dismissive arrogance rather than actually attempting to provide an answer. At what point did I say that I had not looked up basic definitions or context? What I have said is that I did not do so through Google but from other sources. I then raise the question "I still struggle to find a legal case where child negligent (sic) that could potentially not be considered persistent is the primary charge". You have said you have an expertise in this area so I was rather hoping you could point in the correct direction. Is that really so wrong of me?
Xordium didn't say that it is classed as persistent, but that it is enough for a potential prosecution. He was not being arrogant, but giving his professional opinion.
As far as an example from a quick google:
M v Normand (1995) SLT 1284, HCt Judiciary [ a Scottish case which may have persuasive authority ],the Appellant had parked his car leaving his son aged 18 months old strapped in a child’s car seat in the rear of the car whilst he and his wife went to do some Xmas shopping. A traffic warden was on duty when he saw the Appellants’ car with the chid in the car seat. The child was sitting quietly, appeared to be awake, not distressed and adequately clothed. The police were called and remained next to the car until the parents returned some 55 minutes later. The Appellant was found guilty of a contravention of s12 Childrens & Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937in that he did “wilfully neglect and abandon him in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to health”.
This illustrates a single act of neglect is enough to form the basis of a prosecution.
It was submitted that “where a child of this age was left on its own for a substantial period, VERY LITTLE MORE WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED… and that “the child might have become distressed simply by reason of it being left alone in that period of time, and this was a circumstance which could cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health…”
And another similar, in that the McCann children were left on more than one occasion also:
In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to S1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.
