At what point are parents deemed responsible when they make a decision to leave someone in charge of their child, who has already shown that they can't be trusted?
I asked this when Ellie Lawrenson was killed by her Uncles pitbull.
In that case, the child was left with Grandma who lived with Uncle, and was at the time in charge of the dog.
The dog had had complaints about its behaviour made before. It had attacked another child resulting in a leg injury/stitched wound. It was known to be aggressive, and the Uncle owned it with the intention that it be aggressive...the dog was 'trained' by being kicked and beaten by his owner.
The parents knew the dog was there, knew that Grandma was a drug user. They insisted the dog be shut out whilst the child was there as they were aware of prior incidents and complaints, and the dogs general nature and the reason it had been purchased, but it was new years eve and the dog was scared of fireworks so Grandma let him in.
Ellies parents did not, in my opinion, behave responsibly in leaving their child in the care of this person, but they were not charged with anything. Grandma was found not guilty of manslaughter, despite having drunk two bottles of wine that night and smoked 'up to' ten joints, in the period she was looking after Ellie.
The only penalty anyone received in this case was the dogs owner, who did a few weeks for owning a dangerous dog.
So what does it take for a legal system to decide the parents who chose to leave their child in an incompetent persons care, are also responsible for that childs death?