“It is primarily the blameworthiness of parental non-action, however, that justifies recognition of a tort duty to protect minor children” (Johnson & Hargrove, p. 319). “For example, in Laser v. Wilson,28 the high court of Maryland found that the parents of a two year-old child, and not their hosts, who had invited the parents and their child to a family gathering, had the duty to protect the child from the obvious danger of an open stairwell. 29 In a Texas case, a trial court entered a tort verdict against a mother who had failed to protect her daughters from abuse by their father.30 In another passive-parent case, in Minnesota, "the mother of a 21-year-old woman who was molested by her father as a child [was] found jointly liable for part of a $2.4 million jury award against him" (Johnson & Hargrove, p.
…show more content…
136). This general rule of no duty should not apply to a woman and her fetus. When a mother brings a child in the world, for those first nine months she is the only one who can care for the child and provide direct nourishment to the child. In the cases where the mother purposely got pregnant, she chose to conceive a child and therefore formed a duty and responsibility to take care of the baby. That is just like buying a dog and not feeding, training, or walking it. What is the point of buying it if you are not going to take care of it? Ethically, families are supposed to look out for one another. Nevertheless, a mother-baby relationship cannot be compared to a cousin-cousin relationship. Yes, because they are family they should look out for each other, but it is not an obligation. Unless one cousin is the guardian of the minor, the older cousin is not responsible for the younger cousin. If one is a minor who needs consent, the place or person asking for consent would not contact the other cousin, but a guardian or
136). This general rule of no duty should not apply to a woman and her fetus. When a mother brings a child in the world, for those first nine months she is the only one who can care for the child and provide direct nourishment to the child. In the cases where the mother purposely got pregnant, she chose to conceive a child and therefore formed a duty and responsibility to take care of the baby. That is just like buying a dog and not feeding, training, or walking it. What is the point of buying it if you are not going to take care of it? Ethically, families are supposed to look out for one another. Nevertheless, a mother-baby relationship cannot be compared to a cousin-cousin relationship. Yes, because they are family they should look out for each other, but it is not an obligation. Unless one cousin is the guardian of the minor, the older cousin is not responsible for the younger cousin. If one is a minor who needs consent, the place or person asking for consent would not contact the other cousin, but a guardian or