new-york-state children law-in-fiction slavery human-trafficking
Is it true that it&#39;s not illegal for a parent to sell their 13-year-old child to a drug dealer?
<p>My question is prompted by an episode of the TV show <em>Law &amp; Order</em>, specifically the <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629427/?ref_=ttep_ep19" rel="noreferrer">6th-season episode titled &quot;Slave&quot;</a>.</p>
<p>In the episode, a couple of the lawyers state as fact that it is not illegal for a parent to sell their child. That seems clearly false, but I'm skeptical that the writers would write something that's obviously wrong. It makes me wonder if there's something I'm missing.</p>
<p>The prime suspect for a shooting in New York City is a 13-year-old boy.</p>
<blockquote class="spoiler">
<p> The truth is that his mother, an impoverished crack addict, has &quot;sold&quot; her son to her drug dealer to settle a debt of $865, and to gain credit to acquire more drugs. The boy <em>is</em> guilty of the shooting, which he performed under direct orders from the dealer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Once the prosecutors figure this out, they present their theory of the case to the boy and his attorney, hoping to deal for his testimony. He refuses to deal, and then his lawyer says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Selling your kid may be despicable, but it's not illegal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the next scene, District Attorney Adam Schiff concurs:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>She's right. No statute against selling your kid.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My question: is that accurate? More precisely, were those statements consistent with the law in New York City in April 1996 (when this episode aired)?</p>
<hr />
<p>In case it matters, here's the bulk of what is revealed about the arrangement, elicited when McCoy examines the boy (Lonnie) on the witness stand. Of course, there's no formal legal agreement. None of the people I quoted earlier had this information when they made the quoted statements.</p>
<blockquote class="spoiler">
<p> McCoy: Lonnie, tell these people why you didn't run away [from the whole situation with the dealer].<br>
 Lonnie: Because of my mom. She said I had to stay with Ross [the dealer] and do what he said.<br>
 McCoy: Why?<br>
 Lonnie: She owed him money and he was going to hurt her.<br>
 McCoy: How long were you with him before you were arrested?<br>
 Lonnie: I'm not sure. It was a lot of weeks.<br>
 ...questions about his activities with the dealer...<br>
 McCoy: Did he pay you?<br>
 Lonnie: No, sir.<br>
 ... questions about bad treatment<br>
 McCoy: How long were you supposed to stay with him?<br>
 Lonnie: I don't know.<br>
 McCoy: As long as your mother needed drugs?<br>
 Lonnie: I don't know.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to tag this with contract-law, property, employment, or even us-constitution (e.g. 13th Amendment).</p>

<p>This is totally, flat out wrong. Quite frankly, it is immoral, although not illegal, for the producers to even cause some viewers to believe it is true.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-77" rel="noreferrer">United States criminal code (Title 18) in Chapter 77</a>, prohibits all forms of slavery (except as punishment for a crime which New York State does not authorize) including the one described. It is not legal. This statute implements the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (abolishing slavery except as punishment for a crime) and was enacted under the enforcement authority provided by that statute. Those statutes have been in force for more than a century. For example, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1590" rel="noreferrer">18 USC § 1590</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a)Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or
obtains by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of
this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this
section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or the attempt to commit aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.</p>
<p>(b)Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes
with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be subject to
the penalties under subsection (a).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584" rel="noreferrer">15 U.S.C. § 1584</a> is squarely on point:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or
sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person
for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years,
or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if
the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.</p>
<p>(b)Whoever obstructs, attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes
with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be subject to
the penalties described in subsection (a).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It also would constitute <a href="https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article260.php#p260.00" rel="noreferrer">criminal child endangerment</a>, <a href="https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article260.php#p260.00" rel="noreferrer">child abandonment</a>, <a href="https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article220.php#p220.28" rel="noreferrer">use of a child to commit a controlled substances offense</a>, conspiracy to commit <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/135.60" rel="noreferrer">criminal coercion</a>, conspiracy to have a child engaged in illegal child labor, etc.</p>
<p>Possession of controlled substances by the mother is also a crime, although that crime was committed before the mother tried to sell her child to pay her drug debt.</p>
<p>(I originally also included crimes like sex trafficking and pimping a child, but from the question it does not appear that the facts implicated those offenses.)</p>
<p>It would also constitute grounds to civilly terminate the parental rights of the mother for child abuse and/or neglect, because it violated laws in addition to criminal laws.</p>
<p>If the child had a living father whose parental rights had not been terminated (one can't tell from the question, but perhaps the full episode made it clearer), it would violate the father's right to custody of his child.</p>
<p>The child, though a guardian or as an adult, could sue the mother for intentional inflection of emotional distress/outrageous conduct, false imprisonment, failure to provide support, etc.</p>

<p>I don't know of any crime specifically addressing the sale of a child, but a good prosecutor rarely needs such a narrowly tailored solution to bring charges against anyone.</p>
<p>In real life, I imagine a prosecutor who wanted to charge the mother would have relied on New York's <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/135.60" rel="noreferrer">coercion statute</a>, which makes it a felony when a person:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>compels or induces a person to engage in conduct ... or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise ... by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will cause physical injury to a person.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, the mother and the dealer have compelled the victim to engage in criminal activity and join the dealer's drug operation by threatening that the dealer &quot;was going to hurt her&quot; if he didn't cooperate in the criminal enterprise.</p>
<p>The coercion statute had been on the books for decades (at least) at the time this episode aired.</p>

<h2>Human Trafficking Laws</h2>
<p>Since the date of the episode, the US Federal Government passed the The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (TVPA) which forms <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/chapter-78" rel="noreferrer">22 U.S. Code Chapter 78</a> which makes it unlawfull to &quot;traffic in&quot; (buy or sell) human beings, particualrly for sexual purposes.  According to <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/human-trafficking-laws.aspx" rel="noreferrer">&quot;Human Trafficking State Laws&quot;</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In 2003, Washington became the first state to criminalize human trafficking. Since then, every state has enacted laws establishing criminal penalties for traffickers seeking to profit from forced labor or sexual servitude. The laws vary in several ways including who is defined as a “trafficker,” the statutory elements required to prove guilt in order to obtain a conviction and the seriousness of the criminal and financial penalties those convicted will face.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But none of those laws was in effect during the 1990s.</p>
<h2>Thirteenth Amendment</h2>
<p>Whether a prosecution could have been brought brought directly under the 13th amendment to the US Constitution is not entirely clear to me. <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/219/219/" rel="noreferrer"><em>Bailey v. Alabama</em>, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)</a> held that the 13th Amendment was self-executing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[<em>219 U. S. 240</em>] Pursuant to the authority thus conferred [by section 2 of the 13th amendment], Congress passed the Act of March 2, 1867, c. 187, 14 Stat. 546, the provisions of which are now found in §§ 1990 and 5526 of the Revised Statutes, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>SEC. 1990. The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in the Territory of New Mexico, or in any other territory or state of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of the Territory of New Mexico, or of any other territory or state, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.</p>
<p>SEC. 5526. Every person who holds, arrests, returns, or causes to be held, arrested, or returned, or in any manner aids in the arrest or return, of any person to a condition of peonage, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...</p>
<p>[<em>219 U. S. 241</em>]  The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude.</p>
<p>While the Amendment was self-executing so far as its terms were applicable to any existing condition, Congress was authorized to secure its complete enforcement by appropriate legislation. As was said in the <em>Civil Rights Cases</em> 109 U.S. 20:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By its own unaided force and effect, it [the 13th amendment] abolished slavery and established universal freedom. Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character, for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<h3>Peonage Abolition Act of 1867</h3>
<p>The Court in <em>Bailry</em> cites the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peonage_Act_of_1867" rel="noreferrer">The Peonage Abolition Act of 1867</a> which made it a crime to hold any person in &quot;voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise&quot; This law would, it seems to me, have been able to be applied to the case described in the question, but it was more usually applied to agricultural labor, and it might well be that no one would have thought to apply it. The first part of this law became <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1994" rel="noreferrer">42 USC  1994</a> and the second <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1581" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 1581</a>.</p>
<p>Findlaw's <a href="https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment13.html" rel="noreferrer">page on the 13th Amendment</a> also quotes the <em>Civil Rights Cases</em> 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This Amendment is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Findlaw page goes on to say that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The force and effect of the Amendment itself has been invoked only a few times by the Court to strike down state legislation which it considered to have reintroduced servitude of persons, and the Court has not used section 1 of the Amendment against private parties. In 1968, however, the Court overturned almost century-old precedent and held that Congress may regulate private activity in exercise of its Section 2 power to enforce section 1 of the Amendment.{<em>Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.</em>, 392 U.S. 409, 439 (1968) [<em>in Fiindlaw's footnote 27</em>]}</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Peonage Abolition Act was also extensively refereed to in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/322/4#fn21_ref" rel="noreferrer"><em>Pollock v. Williams</em> 322 U.S. 4 (1944)</a> where the Court wrote, in section 22 of the opinion:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>he undoubted aim of the Thirteenth Amendment as implemented by the Antipeonage Act was not merely to end slavery but to maintain a system of completely free and voluntary labor throughout the United States. ... Congress has put it beyond debate that no indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Mann Act</h2>
<p>The Mann Act (18 U.S.C. § 1581) prohibited transporting people across state lines for prostitution (originally only women), but no state line is stated to have been crossed in the question. Nor does it seem that selling a child for non-sexual labor fit the terms of the Mann Act.</p>
<h2>Child Endangerment Law</h2>
<p>The New York State Penal Law <a href="https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article260.php#p260.10" rel="noreferrer">Article 260, Section 260.10</a> provides that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:</p>
<ol>
<li>He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than  seventeen  years old  or  directs  or  authorizes  such  child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his or her life or health; or</li>
<li>Being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged  with  the care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he or she fails or refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to  prevent  him  or  her  from becoming an &quot;abused child,&quot; a &quot;neglected child,&quot; a &quot;juvenile delinquent&quot; or a &quot;person in need of supervision,&quot; as those terms are defined in articles ten, three and seven of  the  family court act.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>It would seem that in the circumstances discussed in the question, the drug dealer could have been prosecuted under 260.10(1) and the mother under 260.10(2). It is hard to see how an experienced prosecutor would have overlooked this law.</p>

<p>Slavery, trafficking, that's all hard to prove and make a compelling case from. What really gets you are the books, worker protection and anti discrimination laws.</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7201" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tax evasion</a>. A federal crime. Mom didn't file the gains from the transaction as income.</li>
<li>There were other moms with disabled children whose offers were denied. This violates <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/titles-i-and-v-americans-disabilities-act-1990-ada" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ADA SEC. 12112</a>: &quot;No covered entity [like this drug dealership with more than 15 employees] shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to [...] the hiring [...]&quot;.</li>
<li>The boy was white and was preferred over other mom's offers of their black children, a violation of <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/title-vii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, SEC. 703</a>: <br>
&quot;(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer<br>
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...] any individual [...] because of such individual's race, color [...].&quot;</li>
<li>The employer violated the OSHA regulations:
<ol>
<li>His bathroom breaks were <a href="https://www.oshaeducationcenter.com/articles/restroom-breaks/?lgr=f527d12c-333d-4a07-82c2-0f927bf2131e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">unreasonably delayed</a>.</li>
<li>There was in inadequate number of bathrooms: &quot;toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided&quot; (OSHA regulation <a href="https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.141" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1910.141(c)(1)(i)</a>); for a business with more than 15 employees there must be at least 2 bathrooms. There must be a bathroom for each sex; an exemption exists &quot;where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet&quot;. Since the locks were frequently broken, the exemption condition was not met and the business was in violation. The 13 year old exposed signs of PTSD after a female employee walked in at him defecating.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>New York State's <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/492" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ARTICLE 28-F, Crohn's and Colitis Fairness Act, Section 492</a> requires all &quot;businesses open to the general public for the sale of goods or services&quot; — like an established drug dealership — to allow &quot;any individual who is lawfully on
the premises [...] to use that toilet facility &quot; provided they have &quot;an eligible medical condition or utilize[s] an ostomy device&quot;. If no witness can be found who was denied access, or if they have died in the meantime, a suitable undercover sting operation should be easy to stage.</li>
</ol>
