the same principles and rationale apply to the cireumstances established in the case before us. Absent exigent circumstances that are not present here, public policy and common sense dictate that the duty to provide for a child's safety will usually rest with the child's parents while the child is in the parents' presence. Parents next argue that the Schla-madingers owed a duty to the baby to exercise reasonable care to protect the baby from a condition on their property, namely the sofa where Mother slept with the baby and where the baby suffocated. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 348(a). A sofa is a common household item which generally would not present an unreasonable risk of harm to a baby. See e.g. Lowden v. Lowden, 490 N.E.2d 1143, 1146-47 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), trans. denied (<HOLDING>) Under the designated and undisputed evidence
holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute holding a cup of hot coffee is an ordinary household item almost any household object may become the instrumentality of injury to a small child and we simply cannot consider all such objects to be inherently dangerous indiana law does not require landowners to be absolute insurers of non sui juris child licensees on their property holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation