SPOKANE — The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, has determined there is sufficient enough evidence to prove that a Moses Lake couple withheld food from their son, causing him to suffer severe medical ailments.

Michelle K. Staats and Robert A. Staats, both of Moses Lake, were found guilty of second-degree criminal mistreatment in May 2014.

The Staats began introducing their son, who was born in December 2009, to solid foods when he was 1 year old. However, their son developed a “behavioral aversion” to solid foods, which eventually caused him to gag and vomit at the sight of solid foods. The Staats believed their son’s food aversion was caused by various medical issues and digestive problems and used naturopathic and alternative medicine in an attempt to treat him.

The boy is basically brain-dead and was last living in a western Washington at some type of medical facility, according to a 2014 Columbia Basin Herald article about the trial.

The Staats participated in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, with their son being classified as “high-risk” and a WIC dietitian suggesting that Michelle Staats take the child to a doctor to evaluate his weight loss. Michelle Staats indicated she would take him to a doctor if his weight didn’t improve and in August 2011 reported he weighed about 17 pounds, 18 pounds at the beginning of September and 20 pounds by the end of September. Michelle Staats told WIC the boy’s weight gain was because of natural remedies.

On Oct. 26, 2011 Michelle Staats took her son to a WIC appointment, with the boy’s weight coming in at about 15 pounds. She was advised by WIC staff on how to bring her son’s weight up and was told the matter would be referred to Child Protective Services if she didn’t take her son to a doctor. The Staats brought their son to a doctor, who told them naturopathic care was not appropriate and later told them he needed to be in a hospital where he could receive IV nutrition, but the Staats stated they would continue pursuing alternative remedies.

Michelle Staats opted against IV nutrition and contacted a California-based herbalist who practiced East Asian medicine. The California doctor also recommended the child receive IV nutrition, but the couple again went against the IV nutrition recommendation. The boy’s condition continued to decline and he suffered cardiopulmonary arrest in May of 2012. The hospital reported at 29 months old the boy weighed 10 pounds and was diagnosed with cardiopulmonary arrest, severe malnourishment, severe dehydration, severe hypothermia and renal (kidney) failure.

The malnutrition-induced cardiopulmonary arrest caused the boy to suffer from a "devastating” brain condition which he will never recover from and caused him to have no brain activity.

Police began investigating the incident and prosecutors eventually charged Michelle and Robert with first-degree criminal mistreatment, second-degree criminal mistreatment and possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana. The charges were amended through plea agreements and they were found guilty of second-degree criminal mistreatment during a bench trial. They were sentenced to six months of electronic home monitoring, with the sentences put on hold pending the appeal of the convictions.

The Staats argued that there is “insufficient evidence that they withheld food” from their son, with their two arguments being that IV nutrition is not food and that because they continually fed their son throughout the 12-month charging period, there is no evidence they withheld food from him.

The appeals court ruled that IV nourishment is food, stating that food is defined narrowly as something that is eaten and broadly defined as something that provides nourishment to the body.

“Therefore, we must determine whether the narrow or the broad definition of ‘food’ best effects the legislative goal. Here, the legislative goal goes beyond providing the child with food to eat. It extends to keeping a child alive. This goal is evidenced by the legislature’s focus on providing a child with the ‘basic necessities of life,’” reads the decision. “We therefore broadly define ‘food’ as including the receipt of nutrition intravenously, not just eating through one’s mouth. We hold that ‘food’ encompasses life-sustaining IV nutrition.”

When it comes to the Staats position that they did not withhold food from their son and continued to feed him during the 12-month charging period, the judges rule that in the Staats' implication that the provision of food does not constitute criminal mistreatment, the Staats “would create a hole so large in the statute that it would leave it without meaning.” The judges “refuse” to interpret “withhold” literally and state that a person withholds food, water, shelter, clothing and medically necessary health care when the amount provided is “so deficient that it results in the child suffering substantial bodily harm.”

The ruling goes on to state that even though the Staats were attempting to treat their son through natural means, their “good intentions” do not negate the boy’s permanent and significant injuries that arose due to him not receiving adequate food when IV nourishment was an option.

Richard Byrd can be reached via email at city@columbiabasinherald.com.