Skip links

Las Vegas Child Abuse and Neglect Attorney

Child abuse and neglect in the State of Nevada is a significant case that is seen as a serious crime. This charge can range from the case of just leaving the child alone at home for a while and the child is looking for the parents to the extent of a physical injury inflicted on the child because the adult was trying to discipline and crossed the line. Either way- you could be arrested for child abuse, face prison, and go through a very difficult moment in your life. This will affect your family, career, and social life. When a child has marks on the body, it is generally thought that the parents stretched the boundaries of lawful exercises of parental responsibilities and it is often the beginning of child abuse charges.NRS section 200.508 sets forth the crime of child abuse, neglect and endangerment. This is defined as willfully causing a minor to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.The statute specifically applies against “A person who willfully causes a child who is less than 18 years of age to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering as a result of abuse or neglect or to be placed in a situation where the child may suffer physical pain or mental suffering as the result of abuse or neglect.” Sometimes an accident can occur. You could be holding your child, trip, and fall. This could give the wrong impression that you injured the child when you are trying to explain the situation at the hospital. Suddenly, the situation could be interpreted in the law enforcement community that you did something to your child. In one blink, everything can turn into the most harrowing experience for you. If you or anyone that you know have been accused of child abuse and neglect, it is a extremely important to hire an attorney with the experience in this type of cases to guide during each step and defend you the best way possible. Sometimes charges can be made with poor judgment by law enforcement.At Spartacus Law Firm we specialize in criminal defense. Our team is able to gather information, investigate, and defend your right until you get the results that you deserve. You need the best criminal defense attorney on your side and we can represent you. The law recognizes different types of child abuse.Free Consultation Banner

Physical Abuse

Physical abuse on a child is the actual delivered intention to produce pain on the minor. This normally produces bruises, pain, and sore muscles on the child. They can be the results of severe acts of discipline that went over the limits. In general, they are physical signs of injury and abuse that in some cases ends in fractures or results in death. If the child dies from the abuse then you could be facing charges for murder as well. This is why it is so important to hire a child abuse and neglect attorney at the earliest stage of your case.

Emotional Abuse

This is a behavior that injures the child mentally, psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally. This causes a deficiency in the child’s performance at school academically and socially. Calling the child names, telling the child that is worthless, harsh jokes, and pressuring the child with violence ideological beliefs, can usually result in low self esteem, depression, inappropriate emotional development, and the child desperately seeking affection. In the State of Nevada, this is a little more difficult to prove by the prosecutor because it does not have any physical injuries. Normally it requires a psychological evaluation and witness of the child’s behavior.

Sexual Abuse

This is a situation of sexual penetration without the consent of the other person or under circumstances where the other person was incapable of consent. In the State of Nevada, sexual assault is take very serious and the penalties could include life in prison. The legal age to have consensual sex is 16 years old. This age of consent law protects minors that might not have the capacity to make such an important decision that could affect their physical and mental health. If an adult has sexual penetration with a minor under 16, then the person can be facing criminal charges.If the adult has been touching a child in a sexually manner, promoting the child for sexual stimulation, or has sexual penetration with the child, it is a sexual abuse case. Sometimes the child is used for pornography, engaging in sexually provocative activities. Many parents have images of their kids naked in the bathtub, but it all depends on how the prosecutor interprets them, the location, and circumstances. You could be the victim of false allegations and wrongfully accused of things that you have not done just out of anger or revenge. We have a lawyer specialized in domestic violence at Spartacus Law Firm to defend you and we will help you to fight this case to the best resolution possible. Always use your right to call a defense attorney from the beginning stage of the case. We know this could be really demoralizing, devastating, and humiliating for you and your family. Let us help you to get your life back on track.

Negligent Treatment

Unfortunately this type of abuse occurs when the parents are constantly unable or refuse to care about the child and the minimum needs- even if the parents are physically there. Sometimes, parents could have mental issues, drug dependence, or narcotics abuse that does not allow them to care for the child the proper way. Some of the warning signs of neglect include weight loss, poor growth, poor hygiene, or lack of supplies to meet the minimal needs. Leaving the child alone in the house for long periods of time, without food, water, or basic needs is a great example of neglect. In the worst scenario the neglect could result in death.

Endangerment

This is when the child has been put into a situation that could get hurt physically or emotionally. There are different types of situations that could jeopardize the child’s physical and mental health, such as having a drug lab in the basement of the house where the child lives, having guns around the place without securing them, or leaving the child with an irresponsible person that you know is abusive or struggling with substance abuse addiction. These are all considered child endangerment and if you get charged for this then you will need the most professional lawyer to defend you.We have the best criminal defense group of attorneys in Las Vegas, Nevada and the surrounding area. The earlier that you get in contact with us after a child abuse charge, the better we are able to represent you and mitigate the harsh consequences of these accusations.

FAQs

Where defendant sexually and physically abused children for over a decade, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.508 was a continuing offense; therefore, it was only appropriate to charge defendant with one count of abuse, neglect or endangerment via sexual abuse for the incidents with two children in the shower. The existing law states that the crime continues until the abuse stops. Sena v. State, 510 P.3d 731, 138 Nev. Adv. Rep. 34, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 33 (Nev. 2022).

The Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that an alien’s conviction for Child Abuse and Neglect under NRS 200.508(2)(b)(1) was categorically a crime of child abuse under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); the Nevada statute was broader because it included conduct that created a reasonable foreseeability of harm to a child, while the generic crime required a reasonable probability of harm. Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22032 (9th Cir. 2018).

No, it is not. Although NRS 200.030 and this section both proscribe child abuse which results in death, there is nothing in these provisions that specifically authorizes cumulative punishment. Athey v. State, 106 Nev. 520, 797 P.2d 956, 106 Nev. Adv. Rep. 97, 1990 Nev. LEXIS 94 (Nev. 1990).

Felony child abuse and murder are the same offense and the legislature intended only one punishment for murder by child abuse. Athey v. State, 106 Nev. 520, 797 P.2d 956, 106 Nev. Adv. Rep. 97, 1990 Nev. LEXIS 94 (Nev. 1990).

Subsection 200.508(1)(a)(2), which governs crimes causing substantial bodily harm to a child, does not mention death; given that other statutes, namely NRS 200.030, expressly address death resulting from child abuse, a common-sense reading of subsection (1)(a)(2) suggests “substantial bodily harm” under that statute does not encompass crimes charging the defendant with causing the victim’s death. Paugh v. State, 132 Nev. 1016, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 67 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016).

In every case such as this one, the child abuse by sexual abuse/sexual assault cannot occur without the sexual assault, and therefore, the sexual assault becomes an element of child abuse by sexual assault, and the defendant could not be convicted of both child abuse by sexual abuse/sexual assault and sexual assault. Brown v. State, 113 Nev. 275, 934 P.2d 235, 113 Nev. Adv. Rep. 31, 1997 Nev. LEXIS 35 (Nev. 1997).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant’s convictions for child abuse and neglect and involuntary manslaughter, where he failed to provide adequate care and supervision for his special-needs child and he failed to check on the condition and whereabouts of the child during the 17-hour period that preceded the discovery of the child’s body. Rimer v. State, 131 Nev. 307, 351 P.3d 697, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 36, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 43 (Nev. 2015), limited, High Desert State Prison v. Sanchez, 454 P.3d 1270, 135 Nev. Adv. Rep. 68, 2019 Nev. LEXIS 79 (Nev. 2019).

The child abuse statute is a general intent crime and the word “willfully” must be defined in that context. Childers v. State, 100 Nev. 280, 680 P.2d 598, 1984 Nev. LEXIS 374 (Nev. 1984).

Felony child neglect is a general intent crime and jury instruction defining the required intent as a purpose or willingness to commit the act or to make the omission in question, without any intent to violate the law or injure another was proper. Rice v. State, 113 Nev. 1300, 949 P.2d 262, 113 Nev. Adv. Rep. 141, 1997 Nev. LEXIS 153 (Nev. 1997), overruled in part, Richmond v. State, 118 Nev. 924, 59 P.3d 1249, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 107 (Nev. 2002).

Evidence that mother knew or should have known that her infant who had been burned by hot water was in need of medical care, that she unreasonably delayed in obtaining medical care, and that the delay caused the infant to suffer unjustifiable physical pain, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for felony child neglect. Rice v. State, 113 Nev. 1300, 949 P.2d 262, 113 Nev. Adv. Rep. 141, 1997 Nev. LEXIS 153 (Nev. 1997), overruled in part, Richmond v. State, 118 Nev. 924, 59 P.3d 1249, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 107 (Nev. 2002).

In prosecution for felony child neglect, trial court did not err in failing to give jury instruction on lesser included offense of gross misdemeanor child neglect because (1) the evidence clearly showed guilt above the lesser offense and (2) the defendant failed to request the instruction. Rice v. State, 113 Nev. 1300, 949 P.2d 262, 113 Nev. Adv. Rep. 141, 1997 Nev. LEXIS 153 (Nev. 1997), overruled in part, Richmond v. State, 118 Nev. 924, 59 P.3d 1249, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 94, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 107 (Nev. 2002).

Subdivision 1(a) requires a willful act as a prerequisite for finding guilt, and a willful act has been defined as an act done intentionally, not accidentally. Smith v. State, 112 Nev. 1269, 927 P.2d 14, 112 Nev. Adv. Rep. 155, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 155 (Nev. 1996), overruled in part, City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 859, 59 P.3d 477, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 87, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 99 (Nev. 2002).

The phrase “unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering” was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendants, since, in light of the evidence concerning the violence or force used against the two-year-old son of the defendants and the child’s subsequent death, it was untenable for the defendants to claim that they could not have reasonably known their conduct was criminal. Bludsworth v. State, 98 Nev. 289, 646 P.2d 558, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 453 (Nev. 1982).

The state must prove that some time elapsed between the victim’s injury and appellant’s attempt to obtain medical treatment, and that during this time, the victim suffered unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering. Martineau v. Angelone, 25 F.3d 734, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10805 (9th Cir. Nev. 1994).

Sufficient evidence existed to convince a jury of defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of felony child abuse where both defendants were responsible for the safety or welfare of the child who might have survived if brought to the hospital sooner; Nevada’s child abuse statute encompasses acts of omission as well as acts of commission. King v. State, 105 Nev. 373, 784 P.2d 942, 1989 Nev. LEXIS 78 (Nev. 1989).

Where a child, as a result of abuse and neglect, required 14 days hospitalization to recover while the hematoma was in remission, suffered impairment of her digestive system and prolonged physical pain, traceable to the defendant’s acts, the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the defendant caused the child substantial bodily harm. Childers v. State, 100 Nev. 280, 680 P.2d 598, 1984 Nev. LEXIS 374 (Nev. 1984).

A person acts unreasonably and is therefore criminally liable if she knows or has reason to know of abuse or neglect yet permits or allows the child to be subject to it. This requirement of knowledge and reasonableness adequately defines the state of mind required for a finding of guilt and effectively precludes punishment for inadvertent or ignorant acts. Smith v. State, 112 Nev. 1269, 927 P.2d 14, 112 Nev. Adv. Rep. 155, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 155 (Nev. 1996), overruled in part, City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 859, 59 P.3d 477, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 87, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 99 (Nev. 2002).

Where the defendant was prosecuted for child abuse for willfully holding his eight-year-old son over burning papers, causing first and second-degree burns to the boy’s stomach and hand, and the evidence showed that such injuries caused serious permanent disfigurement, the jury could properly find that substantial bodily harm had been proved. Levi v. State, 95 Nev. 746, 602 P.2d 189, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 648 (Nev. 1979).

As applied to this case, the phrase “placed in a situation where the child may suffer physical pain or mental suffering as the result of abuse or neglect” in subdivisions 1(a) and (b) was not unconstitutionally vague because all of the terms in that phrase were adequately defined such that the defendant was provided with notice that her conduct was proscribed by law. Smith v. State, 112 Nev. 1269, 927 P.2d 14, 112 Nev. Adv. Rep. 155, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 155 (Nev. 1996), overruled in part, City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 859, 59 P.3d 477, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 87, 2002 Nev. LEXIS 99 (Nev. 2002).

Prosecuting a mother for the delivery of a controlled substance to her child through the umbilical cord is a strained and unforeseen application of this section. Sheriff, Washoe County v. Encoe, 110 Nev. 1317, 885 P.2d 596, 110 Nev. Adv. Rep. 159, 1994 Nev. LEXIS 156 (Nev. 1994).

This section does not apply to a pregnant woman’s ingestion of illegal substances and the resulting transmission of these substances to her child through the umbilical cord. Sheriff, Washoe County v. Encoe, 110 Nev. 1317, 885 P.2d 596, 110 Nev. Adv. Rep. 159, 1994 Nev. LEXIS 156 (Nev. 1994).

Police officer’s testimony helped the state establish that the transportation of a child in a stolen vehicle places that child in a situation where he or she may suffer physical pain or mental suffering. Without such testimony, the jury might not have been fully aware of the dangerousness of the situation in which appellant placed his daughter by transporting her in a stolen vehicle. Consequently, such testimony was relevant to the child endangerment charge and was properly admitted. Hughes v. State, 112 Nev. 84, 910 P.2d 254, 112 Nev. Adv. Rep. 14, 1996 Nev. LEXIS 7 (Nev. 1996).

Where the defendant’s infant died as a result of physical abuse by her husband, and not as a result of the defendant’s neglect, the evidence was insufficient to support her second degree felony murder conviction even though she was convicted of felony child neglect. Labastida v. State, 115 Nev. 298, 986 P.2d 443, 115 Nev. Adv. Rep. 42, 1999 Nev. LEXIS 55 (Nev. 1999).

Defendant’s conviction of second-degree felony murder by means of child abuse, neglect, or endangerment under NRS 200.508 was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial because the jury was not completely and accurately instructed as to the necessary elements of second-degree felony murder and that the improper instructed affected her substantial rights; even though the jury was properly instructed on the inherently dangerous element, the jury was not instructed that there had to be an immediate and direct causal connection between defendant’s unlawful acts and her daughter’s death. Defendant’s substantial rights were affected because the State failed to specify the felony under which it sought a second-degree felony murder conviction, Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.508(1) or (2), as § 200.508(2) could not serve as a predicate felony to second-degree felony murder and the State’s charging document and jury instruction contained language from both sections; in addition, there was conflicting evidence as to whether defendant or her daughter’s father inflicted her mortal wounds. Ramirez v. State, 235 P.3d 619, 126 Nev. Adv. Rep. 22, 2010 Nev. LEXIS 27 (Nev. 2010).

In a case where defendant was convicted of unlawful reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326, where a statute could be violated through negligence alone, its violation does not constitute a crime of violence for sentencing enhancement purposes under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2; defendant’s prior state court conviction for child abuse and/or neglect causing substantial bodily harm under this section was not itself evidence of the requisite use of force to constitute a crime of violence, and application of the 16-level sentencing enhancement was inappropriate. United States v. Contreras-Salas, 387 F.3d 1095, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22773 (9th Cir. Nev. 2004).

Writ of mandamus was issued instructing a trial court to dismiss one count of an indictment charging petitioner with child abuse and neglect, in violation of NRS 200.508(1), because, given the difference between the statutory and common definition of “physical injury,” the prosecutor should have provided the statutory definition of the element consistent with NRS 172.095(2). Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 129 Nev. 445, 305 P.3d 898, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 48, 2013 Nev. LEXIS 59 (Nev. 2013).

Defendant’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter and child-abuse-and-neglect-resulting-in-substantial-bodily-harm did not violate his right against double jeopardy; each offense required proof of an element that the other did not. Rimer v. State, 131 Nev. 307, 351 P.3d 697, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 36, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 43 (Nev. 2015), limited, High Desert State Prison v. Sanchez, 454 P.3d 1270, 135 Nev. Adv. Rep. 68, 2019 Nev. LEXIS 79 (Nev. 2019).

There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for child abuse, neglect, or endangerment based on the fact that defendant took the child and hid her while police searched for him, which affirmatively prevented anyone else from caring for, or being responsible for, the child. Anderson v. State, 132 Nev. 939, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 109 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016).

Evidence overwhelmingly supported defendant’s convictions for child abuse, neglect, or endangerment; a rational juror could reasonably conclude that he exposed children to physical danger by discharging a firearm several times in a vehicle with the children present and, in an infant’s case, seated immediately adjacent to the victim. Newson v. State, 449 P.3d 1247, 135 Nev. Adv. Rep. 50, 2019 Nev. LEXIS 62 (Nev. 2019), sub. op., op. withdrawn, 462 P.3d 246, 136 Nev. Adv. Rep. 22, 2020 Nev. LEXIS 22 (Nev. 2020).

Rational juror could find defendant guilty of two counts of child abuse, neglect or endangerment in violation of this provision, because the jury could reasonably infer that defendant was responsible for both children’s welfare at the time of the shooting, and by shooting the victim in a moving car while she was seated next to the two children, defendant subjected the children to “harmful behavior” that was “terrorizing” or “emotionally traumatic” and therefore amounted to negligent treatment or maltreatment. Newson v. State, 462 P.3d 246, 136 Nev. Adv. Rep. 22, 2020 Nev. LEXIS 22 (Nev. 2020).

Where defendant sexually and physically abused children for over a decade, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for abuse, neglect or endangerment via sexual abuse because he, his wife, and his ex-wife acted together in a conspiracy to repeatedly abuse their own children until the crimes were finally reported to police. Defendant’s wife testimony that she continued to participate and did not report the crimes due to fear and video evidence of them discussing the sex acts that they wished to perform upon the children was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was an agreement between them. Sena v. State, 510 P.3d 731, 138 Nev. Adv. Rep. 34, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 33 (Nev. 2022).

District court did not err in refusing to proceed with the plea agreement as written because the plea agreement failed to state a crime under subsection (1)(a)(2); the plea agreement listed the crime as “Abuse, Neglect or Endangerment of a Child Causing Death,” but subsection (1)(a)(2) did not mention death. Paugh v. State, 132 Nev. 1016, 2016 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 67 (Nev. Ct. App. 2016).