People v. Ogg
161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584, 219 Cal. App. 4th 173, 2013 WL 4625060 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent can be convicted as an aider and abettor in the continuous sexual abuse of their child if they fail to protect the child despite knowing of the abuse, even if the parent was not present during the abuse.
Facts:
- Lynda Gabriella Ogg was convicted of aiding and abetting the continuous sexual abuse of her daughter, A.R., by her boyfriend, Daniel Ogg, whom she later married.
- The abuse began when A.R. was approximately six years old and continued until she was sixteen, with Daniel performing various sexual acts on A.R. including oral copulation and eventually sexual intercourse.
- A.R. reported the abuse to her mother on at least two occasions - once when she was six and again when she was ten years old. Daniel also admitted to Ogg that he had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with A.R.
- When A.R. told her mother about the abuse at age ten, Ogg asked if A.R. 'liked it' and then gave her the option to either call the police or give Daniel 'another chance.' Ogg warned A.R. that if she reported the abuse, Ogg would go to jail and A.R. would go to foster care.
- Despite knowing about the abuse, Ogg married Daniel when A.R. was eleven years old, and the abuse continued until A.R. was sixteen, when she told a friend who reported it.
- When interviewed by police, Ogg initially denied knowing about the abuse but eventually admitted that Daniel had confessed to her that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct with A.R. when she was ten.
- Ogg's mother testified that she had suspected A.R. was being sexually abused and had expressed her concerns to Ogg, who 'shrugged it off.' When asked why she didn't protect A.R., Ogg reportedly said that 'the kids would come and go, but Daniel would be in her life forever.'
- The trial court sentenced Ogg to the upper term of 16 years in prison for aiding and abetting continuous sexual abuse of a child under Penal Code sections 31 and 288.5.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a parent be criminally liable as an aider and abettor for failing to protect their child from continuous sexual abuse when they are aware of the abuse but not present during its commission?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J. (J.)
Yes. Ogg's failure to protect her daughter, despite being aware of the abuse, constitutes aiding and abetting the continuous sexual abuse of a child. Because a parent has a legal duty to protect their child from harm, Ogg's inaction in the face of known abuse satisfies the requirements for aider and abettor liability. Although generally failure to prevent a crime is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability, a parent's failure to fulfill their common law duty to protect their child from attack can form the basis for such liability. The evidence and reasonable inferences establish that Ogg knew the full extent of Daniel's criminal purpose and, by her inaction, intended to facilitate his sexual abuse. Ogg knew Daniel had molested A.R. and would continue to do so without intervention, as A.R. told her about the abuse twice and Daniel himself admitted to molesting A.R. Ogg facilitated the continuing sexual abuse when she kept Daniel in the home, married him, and discouraged A.R. from reporting the abuse by warning her about foster care and potential imprisonment for Ogg. This evidence supports the reasonable inference that Ogg's warnings were motivated by her selfish desire to continue her relationship with Daniel rather than protect A.R., as evidenced by her statement that children 'come and go, but Daniel and I are forever.' It is irrelevant that Ogg was not present during the abuse or that she did not intend to gratify her own sexual desires. Her conviction requires proof that she failed to protect her daughter when she knew of Daniel's criminal purpose, and she both acted and failed to act with the intent to facilitate his abuse. Furthermore, sufficient evidence supports the finding that Ogg knew Daniel intended to engage in three or more acts of sexual abuse over the course of more than three months, as required for continuous sexual abuse under section 288.5. Ogg allowed Daniel years of recurring access to A.R. after learning of the abuse, and told police she believed it 'probably' happened on a 'few' or 'several' occasions. A reasonable inference is that Ogg would believe the abuse would continue as long as Daniel had access to A.R. and that there were more than three incidents of abuse.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of aider and abettor liability for parents who fail to protect their children from sexual abuse. The court establishes that a parent's legal duty to protect their child can form the basis for criminal liability even when the parent is not present during the abuse. The decision emphasizes that a parent who knows about ongoing sexual abuse of their child and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it can be held criminally responsible as an aider and abettor if their purpose in not intervening is to facilitate the abuse. This ruling has important implications for parental responsibility in child abuse cases and reinforces the legal system's commitment to protecting vulnerable children from harm within their own homes.
