## Facts

- Ruby Pointer imposed a restrictive macrobiotic diet on her two young children, excluding meat, dairy, and many vegetables, despite medical warnings that the regimen was unsafe for young children and hazardous for an infant when combined with breastfeeding.
- Child-protection authorities became involved after a complaint of neglect; a social worker urged Pointer to consult a pediatrician, but she did not obtain timely care for one child.
- One child deteriorated severely and required immediate hospitalization; Pointer initially resisted recommended medical intervention until authorities intervened to protect the child.
- After authorities and medical providers intervened, Pointer fled with the children to Puerto Rico in violation of a custody order and was later apprehended.
- A jury convicted Pointer of felony child endangerment and violation of a custody decree.
- The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted five years’ probation, and imposed jail time; it also ordered, as a probation condition, that Pointer not conceive a child during probation.

## Issues

1. Whether felony child endangerment under California Penal Code § 273a(1) requires specific intent, or instead is a general-intent offense.
2. Whether a probation condition prohibiting a defendant from conceiving a child during the probationary term is a valid exercise of sentencing discretion.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for felony child endangerment and violation of a custody decree.
- The court held Penal Code § 273a(1) is a general-intent offense and does not require proof of a specific intent to injure the child.
- The court invalidated the probation condition prohibiting conception during probation as exceeding permissible probationary authority and infringing constitutional rights.
- The matter was remanded for resentencing to remove the unlawful probation condition and impose lawful conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 273a(1) defines a general-intent offense: the prosecution must show willful conduct that places a child in circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death, not a specific purpose to harm.
- Probation conditions are subject to limits; a condition is improper when it lacks a sufficient relationship to the offense, regulates otherwise lawful conduct without adequate justification, and is not reasonably related to preventing future criminality.
- A condition that directly restricts conception intrudes on fundamental privacy and liberty interests in procreation and bodily autonomy and requires compelling justification and narrow tailoring.
- A blanket, multi-year ban on pregnancy is overbroad where less intrusive, more directly related conditions (e.g., medical oversight, nutrition and parenting requirements, child-welfare monitoring) are available.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Pointer’s convictions and clarified that felony child endangerment under Penal Code § 273a(1) is a general-intent crime, but it struck a probation condition barring conception because it was overbroad, insufficiently tied to rehabilitation and future risk, and an impermissible infringement on the fundamental right to procreate.


People v. Pointer, 151 Cal. App. 3d 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)