Which of the following statements accurately describes an element of child abuse related to acts that could injure a child?

• A. An act that could reasonably be expected to result in injury is not required
• B. An act that could reasonably be expected to result in injury is an element
• C. True only for physical injury
• D. Only mental injury qualifies

Answer: (B)

Abuse can be established by showing the caregiver’s act was capable of causing harm, not that harm actually occurred. The element looks at foreseeability—the act itself must be something that could reasonably be expected to result in injury to the child. If the act creates a risk of harm, that can satisfy the element, even if no injury happens.

This is why the statement stating that an act that could reasonably be expected to result in injury is an element is the best fit. It captures the foreseeability standard that underpins many abuse statutes: the focus is on the danger the act posed, not on whether injury ended up occurring.

The other ideas don’t fit because they either deny the need for any injury risk (which some statutes do require) or limit the scope to one type of harm. Some rules apply to physical injury as well as mental injury, and some jurisdictions recognize physical harm as abuse without requiring a mental harm component.