I'm no lawyer, but I can't see how the judge is able to square this with a plain reading of the law.

Here is the Virginia code on contributing to the delinquency of a minor: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter5/secti...

The only portion that is even remotely relevant is:

> (b) renders a child delinquent, in need of services, in need of supervision, or abused or neglected as defined in § 16.1-228;

However, here is that section: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/16.1-228/

Paragraph 2 is the relevant one:

> No child whose parent or other person responsible for his care allows the child to engage in independent activities without adult supervision shall for that reason alone be considered to be an abused or neglected child, provided that (a) such independent activities are appropriate based on the child's age, maturity, and physical and mental abilities and (b) such lack of supervision does not constitute conduct that is so grossly negligent as to endanger the health or safety of the child. Such independent activities include traveling to or from school or nearby locations by bicycle or on foot, playing outdoors, or remaining at home for a reasonable period of time.

I would think that in order to justify a conviction, prosecutors would have had to overcome the above by showing evidence that this particular child is INCAPABLE of safely walking to a nearby location within his neighborhood, or that the child ACTUALLY DID put himself in danger, i.e. by entering the pond.

Something tells me that evidence does not exist, and the judge ruled based on something other than a correct reading of the law.

They will simply call it grossly negligent, triggering the exception.