Jane Doe I et al v. Warr

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for the defendant argued that subsection A5 of the mandatory reporter statute should be interpreted narrowly to include only de facto parents who provide necessities of life, excluding babysitters and Sunday school teachers.
2. The court questioned whether the term 'care' in the statute could be read broadly to include anyone with temporary responsibility for a child, such as a Sunday school teacher, rather than being limited to parental figures.
3. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the legislature intended 'care' to be a general category encompassing anyone with temporary charge of a child, citing the statute's purpose to protect defenseless children.
4. The justices expressed concern about fair notice and potential overbreadth, specifically asking how casual caregivers like teenage babysitters would know they are subject to felony penalties for failing to report suspected abuse.
5. Counsel for the defendant maintained that 'care' is a bright-line legal concept requiring the assumption of responsibility for life necessities, distinguishing it from temporary delegation of authority by parents.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT1H30M2S · Captions available