Replies

Yes, it means that it must be proved that she intended to harm her children.
I looked up the "child abuse" defintion that would pertain to the felony statute so she can claim it was an "accident" and the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that the "intent" or reason she left her kids was to harm them, which without direct witness testimony would seem pretty difficult to me

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION ACT (EXCERPT)

Act 250 of 1982

722.602 Definitions. Sec. 2.

(1) As used in this act:

(a) “Child” means a person under 18 years of age.

(b) “Child abuse” means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a person responsible for the child's health or welfare, which harm occurs or is threatened through nonaccidental physical or mental injury; sexual abuse, which includes a violation of section 145c of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.145c of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

which harm occurs or is threatened through nonaccidental physical...

This is where I don't think she has much wiggle room. I don't think the prosecutor should even have to prove that she knew her kids would be baked alive. Harm was threatened when she left them alone. They were completely defenseless. They could have been kidnapped, raped, beaten, sold into slavery, any number of things may have occurred through her willfull negligence. She knew that harm could come to them. IMO, its unreasonable to assume that she DID NOT know that she was endangering her kids. She lives in the same society as we do. She knew what could happen if she left her kids alone but she threw the dice anyway. Unfortunately, just because I see it that way doesn't mean the prosecutor or courts will agree.