Defense Lawyer for Cruelty to Children Charges in Georgia

At Bixon Law, we understand the damaging mental image that a “cruelty to children” charge may incite. Such allegations can have profound personal and professional repercussions, affecting every aspect of your life. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with the compassionate and vigorous defense you deserve, ensuring your rights are protected every step of the way.

When you hear “cruelty to children” in the same sentence, you may have immediate mental images of horror movie-style physical abuse. When you look at the words individually, it may sound more like saying harsh things to a child. Georgia’s legal definition of “cruelty to children” can include both of these and everything in between. In fact, “cruelty to children” is arguably most commonly found in situations where a child was never touched or spoken to, but is considered a preventable witness to a crime- situations known as “Cruelty to Children in the Third Degree”.

The Three Tiers

There are three tiers of Cruelty to Children charges in Georgia: Cruelty in the First (Felony), Cruelty in the Second (Felony), and Cruelty in the Third (Misdemeanor). It is important to understand that each of these classifications has its unique criteria, but can still be charged concurrently. The main differentiators are whether the child was the victim of a crime or just witness to it, and in cases where the child was the victim whether the harm done was intentional or a result of negligence.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial for anyone facing such charges, as the consequences vary significantly between the tiers. First-degree cruelty involves maliciously causing a child cruel or excessive physical or mental pain, while second-degree entails causing such harm through criminal negligence. Third-degree, often charged when a child witnesses a forcible felony, battery, or family violence, carries less severe penalties but still has serious implications. Navigating these complex legal waters requires experienced legal counsel to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Cruelty in the First▼

Two separate statutes cover Cruelty in the First. A child’s caretaker violates O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(a) when they “willfully deprive the child of necessary sustenance to the extent that the child’s health or well-being is jeopardized”. The main example of this would be starving a child as punishment. A child’s caretaker violates O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(b) when they “maliciously cause a child cruel or excessive physical or mental pain”. This can include something physical like burning a child with a curling iron, or repeated verbal abuse. But because mental pain is a term that is fairly broad and subjective, it can also expand into something such as unsanitary living conditions- it is the arresting officer’s discretion as to whether a situation can cause mental pain and is further at their discretion as to whether this mental pain is cruel or excessive.

Cruelty in the Second▼

A child’s caretaker violates O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(b) when they “with criminal negligence cause a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain”. This is essentially a mirrored statute to the statute above, with the only difference being that the pain is caused by negligence. This could include leaving a child unattended, during which time they burn themselves with a curling iron.

Cruelty in the Third▼

There are two versions of Cruelty in the Third, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(1) and O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(2). Each is centered around a child’s exposure to “the commission of a forcible felony, battery, or family violence battery” by the primary aggressor of the crime in question. The difference is that one is based on the child witnessing such acts, whereas the other is based on them being present for them. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(1) reads “the primary aggressor intentionally allows a child to witness” the crime, while O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(2) reads “the primary aggressor, having knowledge that the child is present and sees or hears the act commits” the crime.

Let’s look at some hypothetical situations to understand the differences. If a parent recorded a violent altercation with their spouse and made the child watch it at a later time, they would be guilty of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(1) but not O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(2). If a parent had a violent altercation with their spouse while the child was in their bedroom and could hear, they would be guilty of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(2) but not O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(1). If the parent had a violent altercation with their spouse at the dinner table while the child was present and witnessing, they would be guilty of both O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(1) and O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70(d)(2).

Common Defenses for a Cruelty to Children Charge

Incorrect Charge

While Bixon Law has spent over a decade dissecting these statutes and is intimately familiar with their wordings, many law enforcement officers are not and may charge the incorrect code section. For example, if the alleged crime is negligence-based but they charge you with the malice-based version, Bixon Law can potentially have the charge dismissed. Similarly, if the alleged crime is malice-based but they charge you with the negligence-based version, Bixon Law can potentially have the charge dismissed. The case law below is a prime example of this, and one of many that Bixon Law has prepared to bring into court to defend you.

Not the Aggressor

Cruelty in the Third, the most common charge, can only be presented against the primary aggressor. If we can prove that you did not start or cause the altercation that led to the charge, Bixon Law can potentially have the charge dismissed. Our legal team conducts a thorough investigation to gather evidence and witness statements that demonstrate your non-aggressive role in the incident. We work diligently to uncover any inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative and highlight any mitigating factors that support your defense. By presenting a clear and compelling case that you were not the initiator of the conflict, we aim to protect your reputation and ensure a fair outcome in court.

Challenging the Officer’s Interpretation

Cruelty to Children is based heavily on subjective criteria. There is no black-and-white standard for jeopardized health or well-being (Cruelty in the First), cruel or excessive pain (Cruelty in the First and Second), or even what constitutes negligence (Cruelty in the Second). One example that has taken a national spotlight is the act of spanking: to one officer this may be cruel and unusual, and to another jury member this may be standard child-rearing methodology. Bixon Law can help you present your side of the story when we defend you.

Knowledge of the Child’s Exposure

Cruelty in the Third is based on a child’s exposure to a crime and hinges entirely on whether or not the defendant was aware of this exposure and chose not to prevent it. For example, if you get into an altercation with your spouse after getting home from work but were unaware that your child was already home from school and in their bedroom, Bixon Law can argue that your Cruelty to Children charge is not justified and must be dropped. Our defense strategy will focus on demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the child’s presence during the incident. We will gather evidence, such as witness testimony and timelines, to establish that you could not have reasonably known the child was exposed to the situation.

Lack of Evidence

In many cases, charges of cruelty to children can be based on circumstantial evidence or uncorroborated testimony. If there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that you committed the alleged acts, Bixon Law will rigorously challenge the prosecution’s case. By exposing inconsistencies in witness statements, highlighting the lack of physical evidence, or demonstrating that the evidence presented does not meet the legal threshold for conviction, we can work to have the charges reduced or dismissed. Our thorough investigation and strategic defense approach ensure that every angle is explored to protect your rights and freedom.

Mr. Bixon’s level of knowledge and dedication to his clients is truly beyond top notch. He goes above and beyond to ensure his clients are well-informed, supported, and fiercely represented. If you’re looking for the best lawyer—someone who genuinely cares and consistently delivers results—look no further than Mr. Michael Bixon. He is simply exceptional.