BEVERLY ANNETTA HALL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Battaglia, June 23, 2016,
Child Neglect – Leaving a 3-year old alone with a 14-year old overnight was insufficient to show a violation of CR 3-602.1 where the child was fed and door locked prior to leaving, even where child was known to escape, was not supposed to be left with the 14-year-old, did escape, and mother did not answer the phone despite repeated calls.

(Concur – McDonald with Barbera – Joined majority opinion, wrote separate to emphasize statute not unconstitutionally vague, statute to use before-the-fact standard and not hindsight)
(Dissent – Hotten with Greene, Watts – would find evidence sufficient)

Took a moment to figure out that what appeared to be a 2-2-3 opinion was actually a 4-2-3 opinion with two judges voting twice (or maybe not, since McDonald’s concurrence merely states that “Chief Judge Barbera has indicated that she joins this opinion” instead of the standard “authorized” language. So maybe she doesn’t. But probably she does.)
Though I don’t know how McDonald joins “in full” a “majority” opinion that specifically announces it does not need to decide an issue that he then attempts to “clarify” in his concurrence by saying that the majority opinion actually did address the issue.

Neglect- The standard to be utilized “is whether the parent intentionally failed to provide necessary assistance and resources for the physical needs of the child by acting in a manner that created a substantial risk of harm to the child, measured by that which a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.”

Reckless Endangerment – Recklessness to be determined prospectively from when the decision was made, not with regard to the actual harm that occurred.

The Court then held forth on the dangers of “risk distortion” and natural tendency to judge using hindsight.