Leaving a 14-Year-Old and a 9-Year-Old Home Alone for Days: The Florida Case Under Massachusetts Law

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center

October 31, 2026

On October 18, 2026, a mother in Kissimmee, Florida flew to Las Vegas and left her four children, ages 14, 12, 11, and 9, at home for what she planned as a five-day trip. According to news reports, a babysitter drove in from Tampa each morning to get the children ready for school and came back each afternoon to check on them, but no adult stayed overnight.

On the evening of October 21, a dumbbell fell on the nine-year-old’s head. One of the children called 911. Deputies found no adult in the home. The nine-year-old was treated at a hospital and released. The children’s father then took the children. Detectives arrested the mother at Orlando International Airport when she returned, on four counts of child neglect without great bodily harm, a third degree felony in Florida under Fla. Stat. § 827.03. Those are allegations. She has not been convicted of anything.

This post applies Massachusetts law to those reported facts. The question is what a Massachusetts parent would face after leaving a fourteen-year-old in charge of a nine-year-old for several nights while the parent was out of state. Massachusetts has no statute that names an age at which a child can stay home alone, so the answer depends on the circumstances. The circumstances reported in the Florida case, several nights with no adult in the home, a parent a flight away, and an injury at night, are the circumstances that support a charge of reckless endangerment of a child in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Charge: Reckless Endangerment of a Child

A Massachusetts parent who leaves children without adult supervision is charged, when charged at all, with reckless endangerment of a child under G.L. c. 265, § 13L.

The Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element is that the child was under eighteen. The second element is a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to the child. The third element is that the parent wantonly or recklessly created the risk, or, having a duty to act, wantonly or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce it. Commonwealth v. Coggeshall, 473 Mass. 665, 667-668 (2016).

The firm’s page on reckless endangerment of a child under § 13L explains each element. A defendant convicted under § 13L faces up to two and one-half years in a house of correction. The charge is a misdemeanor.

In a home-alone case, the defense ordinarily contests two elements. The first is the risk. The risk must be a risk of serious bodily injury, which the statute defines as an injury that results in permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death. A substantial risk means “a good deal more than a possibility.” Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 452 Mass. 97, 103 (2008).

The second is awareness. The parent must have been aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it. The Commonwealth must prove what the parent actually knew, not what a reasonable parent would have known. Coggeshall, 473 Mass. at 670.

Florida law and Massachusetts law differ on one point. The Florida neglect statute now states that neglect does not include allowing a child to remain at home for a reasonable period of time, unless allowing it is willful and wanton conduct that endangers the child. Fla. Stat. § 827.03(1)(e). Massachusetts has no clause like that. Section 13L instead protects a parent through the awareness element: an ordinary lapse in supervision, however poor the judgment, is not a crime unless the parent knew of a substantial risk of serious injury and disregarded it.

No Minimum Age, and the Circumstances a Court Considers

Massachusetts law does not name an age at which a child may stay home alone or babysit a younger brother or sister. The firm’s page on what age a child can stay home alone in Massachusetts explains that rule.

The Appeals Court has held that whether leaving a child without supervision is reckless endangerment depends on the totality of the circumstances. The circumstances a court considers are the seriousness of the possible harm, how easily the child could get to the parent, how long the parent was away, the age and maturity of the children, the precautions the parent took, and any other fact that shows whether the parent acted recklessly. Commonwealth v. Santos, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 558, 561 (2018).

In Santos, a mother left her three-year-old in front of the television for ten to fifteen minutes while she used the upstairs bathroom. The child wandered out of the apartment. The Appeals Court held that leaving the child in front of the television did not give the police probable cause to charge reckless endangerment. The same mother then searched for about ten minutes, assumed the child was with a neighbor, and went home without calling the police. The Appeals Court held that stopping the search did give the police probable cause. Id. at 561-563.

Applying the Circumstances to a Fourteen-Year-Old and a Nine-Year-Old

The length of the absence. In Santos, the absence was ten to fifteen minutes, inside the same home. In Commonwealth v. Gibbs, No. 23-P-1128 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 21, 2025), an unpublished decision, the Appeals Court upheld the § 13L convictions of two parents who left four children, ages thirteen, six, two, and eight months, in a running car in a casino parking garage, in heat of at least ninety degrees, three times over almost five hours.

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a DCF neglect finding against a day care worker who left a three-year-old alone in a vehicle for a period of hours. Lindsay v. Department of Social Services, 439 Mass. 789, 799-800 (2003). A parent who leaves children for several nights with no adult in the home is away far longer than in any case in which a Massachusetts appellate court has held the evidence insufficient for a § 13L charge.

How easily the children could get to the parent. In Santos, the mother was upstairs. In Commonwealth v. Nebel, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 316, 321-322 (2003), the father was a short distance from the car. A parent in Las Vegas is a flight of several hours from Florida. The same is true of a Massachusetts parent in Las Vegas. The children can call the parent, but the parent cannot get to them. In the Florida case, one of the children called 911. That call is the evidence a prosecutor uses to show that the parent was not accessible.

The age and maturity of the children. A fourteen-year-old can babysit in Massachusetts. Many fourteen-year-olds watch younger brothers and sisters after school. No statute makes that a crime. A fourteen-year-old left in charge of three younger children for five nights, with responsibility for meals, bedtime, a nine-year-old, and any emergency, is a different fact.

In Gibbs, the Appeals Court did not treat the thirteen-year-old in the driver’s seat as supervision that reduced the risk to the younger children. The nine-year-old’s age also brings a second statute into the case, discussed below, because Massachusetts separately punishes abandoning a child under ten.

The precautions the parent took. The reported precautions were a babysitter each morning and each afternoon, and a phone. A prosecutor would use those precautions as proof of awareness. A parent who hires a sitter for the mornings and the afternoons knows that the children need an adult. The decision to leave the nights uncovered is therefore the conscious disregard the statute requires. Coggeshall, 473 Mass. at 670.

A defense lawyer would use the same precautions as proof that the parent believed the children were safe: a sitter checked on them every day, the children had a phone, the oldest was fourteen, and nothing had gone wrong before. In Santos, the Appeals Court gave weight to the deadbolt the parents had installed after the child wandered off the first time. 94 Mass. App. Ct. at 562. The result of that argument depends on what the parent knew about the children’s needs at night and on what the parent said to the police.

The seriousness of the possible harm. The reported injury, a dumbbell falling on a nine-year-old’s head at 8:30 p.m., is the kind of accident that happens with a parent home as well. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that a child was hurt. The injury itself, treated and released, is also not a serious bodily injury under § 13L. Santos, 94 Mass. App. Ct. at 564.

The question is the risk the parent created. A prosecutor would frame the risk this way: four children alone every night for five nights, with no adult to respond to a fire, a medical emergency, a stranger at the door, or an injury like this one, face a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

The defense answer comes from two decisions. In Commonwealth v. Costa, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 447, 451-452 (2020), the Appeals Court held that the Commonwealth’s claim that a child left in a car “could have injured herself in any number of ways” was speculation and showed negligence at most. In Commonwealth v. Sanon, No. 23-P-1158 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 9, 2025), an unpublished decision, the Appeals Court reversed three § 13L convictions because the Commonwealth proved only speculative risks from a cluttered home in which the children’s grandmother was present.

The parent’s own statements. In Coggeshall, the father’s statements that he always walked on the railroad tracks and that he had been drinking supplied the proof that he knew the danger. 473 Mass. at 670-671. The Florida mother reportedly told detectives about the sitter’s schedule. In a Massachusetts case, that statement proves the overnight gap. A parent questioned after a report that a child was left alone should speak with a lawyer before speaking with the police or with DCF.

The Nine-Year-Old and the Abandonment Statute

G.L. c. 119, § 39 makes it a crime to abandon “an infant under the age of ten.” A defendant convicted under § 39 faces up to two years in a jail or house of correction, and up to five years in state prison if the child dies because of the abandonment. The statute does not define “abandons.”

In Nebel, the Appeals Court reversed the § 39 conviction of a father who left his sleeping three-and-a-half-year-old in a car at a rest area while he went a short distance away. The Appeals Court held that an absence must at a minimum be more than brief and temporary. The evidence showed that the father intended to return shortly. 59 Mass. App. Ct. at 320-322. A five-night trip out of state is not brief and temporary.

The defense to a § 39 charge on the Florida facts is the arrangement itself. A parent who hired a sitter, planned a return date, and stayed in phone contact did not desert the child. The Appeals Court in Nebel wrote that “[t]o equate abandonment with poor judgment . . . is a leap we are not prepared to take.” Id. at 321. The fourteen-year-old, the twelve-year-old, and the eleven-year-old are outside § 39 entirely, because each is ten or older.

The Injury and Assault and Battery on a Child

When a child under fourteen is hurt, the Commonwealth can also charge the parent under G.L. c. 265, § 13J(b) with wantonly or recklessly permitting bodily injury to the child. A defendant convicted of permitting bodily injury faces up to two and one-half years in a house of correction. Permitting substantial bodily injury is a felony. A defendant convicted of permitting substantial bodily injury faces up to five years in state prison. The firm’s page on assault and battery on a child under § 13J explains the statute.

On the reported facts, a § 13J charge would require proof that the parent’s recklessness permitted the dumbbell injury. A weight that falls on a child in a bedroom is an accident that a parent in the next room could not have prevented either. The nine-year-old is under fourteen. The fourteen-year-old is not.

The DCF Investigation

In Massachusetts, the police officers who found the children would report the incident to the Department of Children and Families. Police officers are mandated reporters under G.L. c. 119, §§ 21 and 51A. A child left without adequate supervision is a condition a mandated reporter must report. DCF screens the report and can open a response under G.L. c. 119, § 51B, separate from any criminal case.

DCF defines neglect as a caregiver’s failure to provide a child with minimally adequate supervision, among other essentials. 110 CMR 2.00. The courts give great deference to DCF’s judgment of what supervision is minimally adequate. Lindsay, 439 Mass. at 799. DCF does not have to prove that the parent was aware of a risk or that the risk was one of serious bodily injury. DCF can therefore support a finding of neglect on these facts even when a clerk-magistrate denies the criminal complaint.

The firm’s page on DCF 51A investigations explains the screening, the response, the findings, and the fair hearing. A parent should not give DCF a statement before speaking with counsel, because the Commonwealth can use the statement in the criminal case.

How the Case Would Begin in Massachusetts

In Florida, detectives arrested the mother at the airport. In Massachusetts, the police can arrest a parent at the scene or apply for a criminal complaint. Reckless endangerment of a child and abandonment of a child under ten are both misdemeanors. A parent who has not been arrested has the right under G.L. c. 218, § 35A to a clerk-magistrate hearing before any complaint issues on a misdemeanor application.

At that hearing the clerk-magistrate decides whether the application shows probable cause. A denial means no complaint, no arraignment, and no CORI entry. The firm’s page on clerk-magistrate hearings explains the hearing. The probable cause standard at that stage is low. In Coggeshall, the Supreme Judicial Court called the standard “not particularly burdensome.” 473 Mass. at 671.

The Circumstances That Separate a Charge From an Ordinary Afternoon

On the reported Florida facts, a Massachusetts prosecutor has the circumstances the Santos list describes: an absence of several nights, a parent a flight away, a nine-year-old among the children, and an injury at night with no adult present. A Massachusetts defense lawyer has the awareness element, the daily sitter, the phone, the fourteen-year-old’s age, and the rule that a speculative risk is negligence at most.

A different set of facts changes the answer. A parent who leaves a fourteen-year-old and a nine-year-old for one evening, with a phone and a neighbor next door, has not committed a crime in Massachusetts. A parent who must travel overnight arranges for an adult to stay in the home, because the overnight hours with no adult are the fact that separates this case from an ordinary afternoon of babysitting.

Attorney Joe Serpa represents parents accused of reckless endangerment of a child at clerk-magistrate hearings and in the District Court and the Boston Municipal Court, and advises parents whom DCF contacts after a report that a child was left alone.

Related Serpa Law Office resources

• Reckless Endangerment of a Child in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 265, § 13L
• What Age Can a Child Stay Home Alone in Massachusetts?
• Assault and Battery on a Child in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 265, § 13J
• DCF 51A Investigations After a Massachusetts Domestic Arrest
• Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearing Lawyer
• Massachusetts Criminal Charges Defense