Parents Charged in Adult Son's Overdose

Sept. 10, 2002 -- The last thing Mary and Lewis Hockenbury — and even New Jersey prosecutors — expected was the grand jury to charge them for their son's fatal heroin overdose.

Leonardo DiPasquale, 18, died at his parents' home of a heroin overdose in July 2001.

Prosecutors say DiPasquale was with two friends, Christine Curtin and Erica Poch, when he overdosed almost immediately. Curtin and Poch, Hunterdon County assistant prosecutor Katharine Errickson said, did not take a comatose DiPasquale to the hospital immediately because they did not want to get in trouble. They allegedly drove around with DiPasquale for approximately two hours before finally contacting his parents.

Last month, New Jersey prosecutors got their wish when a grand jury indicted three people in the case — Curtin and Poch on charges of second-degree reckless manslaughter and drug distribution for allegedly providing DiPasquale with the drugs and causing his death, and James Bowkley for alleged drug distribution.

An Unexpected Indictment

However, grand jurors went a step further: they also indicted DiPasquale's parents, the Hockenburys, for reckless manslaughter, sparking debate about parental liability and whether parents can be held responsible for their adult children's drug-induced death.

"I had not really anticipated the grand jury charging the parents with anything," said Errickson. "There was certain conduct by the parents after they were contacted that the grand jury believed was reckless conduct and led to Leo's death. There were conscious steps taken by the parents at that point that the grand jury considered reckless."

According to prosecutors, DiPasquale had overdosed before and he was also charged previously for drug distribution in another person's fatal drug overdose. Errickson could not comment on the specific allegations against the Hockenburys because they have not been made public yet, and the parents are awaiting arraignment. She only said that they were being charged for their actions after learning about their son's condition, not for their son's drug use.

"The allegations against them have very little to do with what he took. The heroin and other substances he took had very little to do with the allegations against them," Errickson said. "He was 18 years old, he was an adult and still lived with them and under New Jersey law they had no legal responsibility for his heroin taking or for not taking heroin."

A Legal Duty to Get Medical Attention — for Adult Children?

Attempts to hold parents responsible for their children's activities are not unprecedented. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 25 states have parental liability laws of some kind. Many of these laws are applied in cases such as school truancy.

However, in recent years, parents have been charged with recklessness for hosting parties for their teenage children where alcohol was served to minors. Victims of school shootings in Littleton, Colo., in West Paducah, Ky., and in Jonesboro, Ark., have filed lawsuits against the parents of the juvenile shooters for allegedly being aware of their children's preparation for the mass school shooting and doing nothing about it. Most of the lawsuits have ended in settlements.

What makes the Hockenbury case different is that they are not being held responsible for what their son — their adult son — did to someone else. They have been charged for what he did to himself and their alleged role in preventing him from receiving the life-saving medical attention he needed.

The Hockenburys are also being held responsible for their adult child — a charge seemingly more common in young children, particularly in clashes between religion and modern medicine. Authorities in Attleboro, Mass., focused on religious sect members David and Rebecca Corneau in 1999 after their newborn son died. Investigators believed the couple withheld modern medical treatment from their son because of their religious beliefs.

In theory, according to the grand jury, the Hockenburys are as responsible for their adult son's emergency medical treatment as they were when he was 3 years old. Parents may not be able to be held liable for their children's drug use, but some experts say they do have an obligation to get them medical attention if they see they are in danger of dying.

"Relatives who live in the same household do owe a legal duty to rescue each other if they know someone's been poisoned," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center. "One interesting question is the issue of causation — who is at fault for having been the cause of his death?"

Still, there is debate over whether people also have a legal obligation to get medical attention for their relatives, or any non-relatives who may overdose or need some kind of emergency care while in their home.

"Certainly, there is a parental obligation with minor children, but with their adult children and people who may not be related, I don't think so," said James Snyder, associate law professor at William and Mary Law School in Virginia. "Even with married couples, I don't think there's a legal obligation to call for help. If you're married and your spouse overdoses, I don't think a you can be prosecuted if you don't call. The states don't have 'Good Samaritan' laws [for those situations]. … You have a duty to not hurt, not to help."

Focusing on Reasonable People, Not Parents

Experts say prosecutors will have to prove that the Hockenburys either did something or failed to do something that prevented their son from receiving life-saving medical treatment and therefore caused his death. Prosecutors will have to prove that DiPasquale would have lived if not for his parents' alleged recklessness. They may also have to overcome arguments that DiPasquale's death was caused more by his friends' alleged recklessness than his parents' actions.

"I'm sure there are going to be a lot of parents out there who would think they have a hard enough time telling a 16-year-old what to do, let alone an 18-year-old," said David Smolin, professor of law at Samford University in Alabama. "Still, in terms of liability, it comes down to action or failure to act: When did they realize their son needed medical attention and what did they do or fail to do? What it also comes down to is how foreseeable was the harm that you're charging him with? Was the risk of death foreseeable?"

To New Jersey prosecutors, experts say the grand jury indictment may not be so much about parental liability but rather the Hockenburys' reaction to their son's overdose as reasonable people.

"Prosecutors seem to be veering away from the parental liability and responsibility issue and seem to treating it in a way where they would ask what would any reasonable person have done in a similar situation," said Jennifer Rosato, law professor at Brooklyn Law School. "One question to ask is whether they took on an extra responsibility to get their son care when he was brought home and therefore leave themselves responsible for getting medical attention for him."

But what if DiPasquale's ingestion of heroin was a suicide? He had previously overdosed. Some say his intentions are irrelevant and only the actions of his parents and friends are key to the case.

"I don't think it really matters legally what he intended to do, if the facts show that the parents knew about his problem and failed to act, it is fair to say that they caused his death," Thompson said. "It really comes down to what happens if there's a poisoning, which is essentially what he did here, it doesn't really matter why the person did what he did. If the parents know that a person is in need of emergency care and they didn't respond or failed to act, they could be held responsible for causing the death."

Mary and Lewis Hockenbury will be arraigned within the next 30 days and Errickson expects defense attorneys to file a motion to have the charges against them thrown out. If the manslaughter charges against them are upheld and they are convicted, the Hockenburys could face up to 10 years in prison.