Is drinking during pregnancy child abuse?

Question

If a woman is seven months pregnant and is still drinking alcohol regularly could that be considered child abuse?

Answer 1

canada

I know you have tagged this negligence, but to also rule out the possibility that this could be a criminal offence, see Criminal Code, s. 223:

A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation; or (c) the navel string is severed.

Regarding liability in negligence or other civil wrongs, see the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson, [1999] 2 SCR 753. The issue was:

Should a mother be liable in tort for damages to her child arising from a prenatal negligent act which allegedly injured the foetus in her womb?

The majority recognized that "[e]verything the pregnant woman eats or drinks, and every physical action she takes, may affect the foetus." To impose a standard of "reasonableness" upon a pregnant woman towards the unborn foetus would "rais[e] the spectre of judicial scrutiny and potential liability imposed for 'lifestyle choices'."

The majority rejected the theory of maternal tort liability for prenatal negligence:

The public policy concerns raised in this case are of such a nature and magnitude that they clearly indicate that a legal duty of care cannot, and should not, be imposed by the courts upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus or subsequently born child. ... the courts should be hesitant to impose additional burdens upon pregnant women. In addition, the relationship between an expectant woman and her foetus is truly unique. Accordingly, there can be no meaningful analogy between a child’s action for prenatal negligence against a third-party tortfeasor, on the one hand, and against his or her mother, on the other. ... there can be no satisfactory judicial articulation of a standard of conduct for pregnant women. A rule based on a “reasonable pregnant woman” standard raises the spectre of tort liability for lifestyle choices, and undermines the privacy and autonomy rights of women.

The concurrence also recognized the impact on liberty that would arise if a cause of action were available against the mother:

Virtually every action of a pregnant woman -- down to how much sleep she gets, what she eats and drinks, how much she works and where she works -- is capable of affecting the health and well-being of her unborn child, and hence carries the potential for legal action against the pregnant woman. Such legal action in turn carries the potential to bring the whole of the pregnant woman’s conduct under the scrutiny of the law. This in turn has the potential to jeopardize the pregnant woman’s fundamental right to control her body and make decisions in her own interest.