Yeah retard. Sometimes people use bold for assholes like you who don't read the "if, thus, then" explanation of legalese. Rekietas were charged with it because they are the parents. Again, Aaron did act as a caretaker at times. He self admittedly assumed responsibility because he stated no one else did. That makes him a caretaker. He has propped himself up to be the person who kept the trains on the track. There is room for interpretation, and either way he was complicit in the behavior that ultimately led to the mandatory reporting. You don't like me comments? Then skip over them and keep being awesome, champ.
Oh, my dear. I'm quite comfortable with "legalese" and have parsed and explained it all over these threads. Spare the ignorant efforts at insult.
Nobody skipped over your bolded words. They just don't say what you want them to.
But serious question: did you sit next to Russell Greer in paralegal school?
He was not a caretaker for purposes of 609.378. Caretaker has a legal definition, which I provided you, and "any adult in a dwelling where children reside" or "any visiting adult to a home who plays a game with or makes a pb&j for kids residing there" is not it. I gave you the legal definition, and you just keep repeating your assertions ("it's right there in the words!") with no support in law or practice. But I'll take that back if you can show me that prevailing law in MN indicates that giving kids food or talking to them transforms an unrelated adult visitor to the home who has not assumed responsibility for their care, either by virtue of familial relationship or formal decision, into a caretaker for purposes of criminal child endangerment under MN law.
Assumption of responsibility for the care of children is not gee, kid looks hungry, parents are MIA, I'm functional, poor kids, better find a can opener. Responsibility means
obligation. It was not his job, paid or unpaid, to provide for those children nor ensure them access to anything. Not food, not clothing, not healthcare, not education, nothing. He had no legal obligation to do any of those things; a caregiver does. If they were enrolled in public school and stopped showing up, no one would be calling Aaron to explain why or enforcing on him the obligation to get them there. No obligation = no violation. No one else was feeding them, so he did; that does not mean he assumed a
legal obligation as a caregiver. No more than a neighbor stopping by with a pot pie for kids always begging for food at her door becomes a "caregiver" of those kids.
And no amount of self-aggrandizing comment
post hoc will retroactively alter his lack of legal duty at the time. Same for the pot pie lady who regrets she didn't say something earlier.
You think any random can come in and declare they are now your kids' caretaker? Or at least until they drive home? That's not how it works.
It's all fine to have some argument for an expansive reading of something, supported or not, but running around like it's some kind of pronouncement from on high and an epic own is goofy. Especially when your amateur reading skips over fundamental concepts.
"PWND, fucker, I declare you guilty" is lol. But keep at it,
Russ lil guy.
You might have had a better argument that he qualified as a "person responsible for the child's care," which would have made him a mandatory reporter. That term is far broader than "caregiver" of a child under MN law:
260E.03:
Subd. 17.Person responsible for the child's care.
"Person responsible for the child's care" means (1) an individual functioning within the family unit and having responsibilities for the care of the child such as a parent, guardian, or other person having similar care responsibilities, or (2) an individual functioning outside the family unit and having responsibilities for the care of the child such as a teacher, school administrator, other school employee or agent, or other lawful custodian of a child having either full-time or short-term care responsibilities including, but not limited to, day care, babysitting whether paid or unpaid, counseling, teaching, and coaching.
That still doesn't work, but it would have been a little better argument.