House seeks to amend crime of child abuse

The House of Representatives passed Monday a bill that will amend the crime of child abuse to include conduct that places a child in imminent danger through the presence of methamphetamine.

With 18 House members voting “yes,” House Bill 23-45, House Substitute 1, now goes to the Senate for action.

Rep. Thomas John Dela Cruz Manglona (R-Saipan) was absent but excused from the session. Rep. Julie Marie Atalig Ogo (Ind-Rota) was not in the chamber during the voting.

Before the voting, the House adopted the Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee’s report that recommended the bill’s passage. The committee, chaired by Rep. Marissa Renee Flores (Ind-Saipan), made some amendments.

Rep. Malcolm Jason Omar (Ind-Saipan) introduced the bill last May.

To address the concerns of Chief Public Defender Douglas W. Hartig, the committee tightened the language of the bill by describing that the offense of child abuse includes delivering, possessing, or using meth in the presence of a child; or having meth in close proximity to a child and such child tests positive for the substance. The committee believes this language strengthens the proposed legislation.

The committee finds that there is an increasing concern in the CNMI about the negative effects on children when parents or other members of the household use drugs or engage in illegal drug-related activities, such as the manufacture of methamphetamines in home-based laboratories.

The committee finds that the CNMI, in addition to American Samoa and Puerto Rico, do not possess laws that address the issue of children affected by parental substance abuse.

Other states and territories possess laws that address substance-exposed newborns, children exposed to parental substance use, or both.

The committee underscored the need to prioritize the well-being of children, especially those exposed in some way to illegal drugs.

The committee deems it appropriate to amend the child abuse laws to include exposure to drugs, especially methamphetamine, as a form of child abuse.

Hartig pointed out in his comments that the proposed legislation includes mere possession of methamphetamine, so this means a person who has a very small amount of the substance in his pocket or even in his car trunk is guilty of child abuse if there is a child near them or in the car.

“This seems hard to justify and unjust,” Hartig said.

He said these persons are guilty of possession, which is already a punishable felony even for a very small amount, but this should not be child abuse as it has absolutely no effect on any child.

He noted that the first sentence of Section (4) in the proposed legislation criminalizes causing “mental distress,” among other things.

He said the second sentence explains what “mental impairment” is, although causing mental impairment is not a crime.

“This is confusing, but can happen when cutting and pasting,” said Hartig, adding that they are left with not knowing what is causing mental distress.

“But it seems we are now criminalizing parents, sending them to prison, branding them a felon for stressing their kids out,” he said.

Hartig said this is unrelated to drug use and is absurd.

He also pointed out that attorney Richard Miller makes many good points in his comments to the committee. Eighteen other lawyers supported and joined Hartig’s comments.

Miller urged the committee to reject this bill and, in the alternative, should consider other models than the Texas statute for such legislation.

Miller said the way to reduce exposing children of drug addicts to methamphetamine is to make effective drug treatment much more available to their parents outside the criminal justice system.

Miller said the children of addicts are already adequately protected by the civil process under the authority of the Division of Youth Services to assume custody of at-risk youth and provide foster homes and guardians.

“Throwing their addicted parents in prison for up to five years, as this bill proposes, will only burden taxpayers with the costs of prosecution and correctional housing, without doing anything to solve the root problem: drug addiction and the woeful inadequacy of addiction treatment options in the Commonwealth,” he said.

Miller said any amendment to the CNMI’s child abuse statute should be careful not to turn pregnant addicts and the doctors who treat them into criminals.

He noted that under the proposed amendment, prosecutors might file charges against a pregnant woman who uses methamphetamine or any other substance that could affect the health and development of the child she bears.

“As a Commonwealth, we should be encouraging pregnant women who have a drug or alcohol problem to seek treatment rather than hide their addiction out of fear of criminal prosecution,” the lawyer said.

He said the Texas statute that this bill appears to be based on is not a good fit for the CNMI. Miller said the Texas statute contains broad language that criminalizes any reckless conduct that places a child in harm’s way.

He said the CNMI’s current child abuse statute already addresses this sort of conduct more than adequately.

Fourteen other lawyers, including Hartig, joined and concurred with Miller’s comments.

Attorney General Edward Manibusan supports the bill. He said that, while the bill does not specifically define “in the presence of a child,” the common usage would imply that the child is in the same room or able to observe the conduct.

He said the bill criminalizes any act which would endanger the health and well-being of a child, but specifically is aimed at criminalizing the act of manufacturing, possessing, or ingesting methamphetamine while in the presence of a child.

Rep. Malcolm Jason Omar