Chapter 15 - THE CRIMINAL CHARGE
Theodora was charged with a serious child-endangerment offense and assaultive conduct relating to Marcellus.
The exact statutory label mattered to lawyers.
To me, the factual allegation mattered more:
She intentionally released a six-week-old infant above an active fire pit, creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
No injury occurred because Dad caught him.
That did not erase risk.
Then Theodora’s lawyer proposed a plea to misdemeanor reckless conduct.
The prosecutor refused initially.
Why?
Intentional release.
Age of infant.
Proximity to fire.
Prior messages showing planned provocation.
No need prove she intended burns.
Only that she knowingly created grave risk.
Theodora rejected the first serious plea offer.
She wanted the incident called:
A failed handoff.
The state refused.
So the case moved toward trial.
That frightened me.
Not because evidence was weak.
Because trials turn memory into performance.
I would have to testify.
Dad.
My sister.
Guests.
Videos.
Then the prosecutor warned:
“No outcome is guaranteed.”
Good.
No one promised conviction.
Then Theodora’s no-contact order remained.
She complied.
No surprise visits.
No messages through relatives.
That mattered.
Compliance does not erase offense.
It is still relevant to future risk.
Then one relative asked:
“Do you want her in prison?”
I did not know.
For the first month:
Yes.
Then:
Maybe.
Then I realized sentencing was not mine to design.
I wanted:
Marcellus safe.
Truth established.
No access until real change.
May you like
Everything beyond that belonged to the court.
That was difficult enough.
