Which term describes actions that recklessly threaten the safety or welfare of a child?

• A. No offense
• B. Reckless endangerment of a child
• C. Strict liability
• D. Self-defense

Answer: (B)

This question tests recognizing a crime defined by threatening a child’s safety and the mental state required. Reckless endangerment of a child describes conduct that consciously creates a substantial risk to a minor’s welfare. The crucial element is recklessness: the person knows there’s a real risk to the child and still acts in a way that increases that risk, rather than intending to harm or simply failing to notice a danger. The result is a criminal act because it endangers a child.

No offense wouldn’t apply here because the behavior is criminal by posing a substantial risk to a child. Strict liability wouldn’t fit since the offense requires a specific mental state (recklessness) rather than liability without regard to intent. Self-defense isn’t the offense at all; it’s a justification for actions taken to protect oneself, not a description of endangering a child.