PROVIDENCE — A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are facing felony child-neglect charges in Family Court after allegedly telling investigators they had intercourse in front of the woman’s 9-year-old daughter in order to teach her about sex.

David Prata, 33, and Rebecca Arnold, 36, of 559 Park Ave., are accused of habitually neglecting the girl in 2004 “by providing an environment that is lewd and depraved in a manner that makes their home unfit for the child to live in,” according to court records. They have pleaded not guilty.

The allegations came to light on Dec. 14, 2004, when the Child Abuse Hotline received a call from a teacher in North Adams, Mass. The teacher said the girl had recently come to live with her biological father in North Adams after spending the summer with her mother in Woonsocket.

The girl, who is now 11, told the teacher that her mother had sex with her boyfriend in front of her and that the mother did not care if the girl was watching, according to a report by Vanessa E. Ciesla, a child-protective investigator with the state Department of Children, Youth and Families.

Ciesla spoke with Prata the next day. “Mr. Prata said that he and [the girl’s] mother believe in a free and open relationship and don’t want to hide anything from [the girl],” the report states.

Ciesla asked Prata what he meant by a free and open relationship. “If [the girl] wants to learn anything about sex, we teach her,” Prata replied.

The investigator asked Prata if he masturbated on a couch while watching pornographic videos, and if the girl was present when he did that. “Yes,” Prata replied.

She asked how often that happened. “All the time,” Prata said. “But I never demanded that she stand or sit in the room to watch.”

The investigator asked if he ever asked the girl to leave. “No,” Prata said.

She asked Prata if the couple had sex in front of the girl. “Yes, all the time,” Prata replied.

The investigator asked where the girl was when they were having sex. “Usually on the bed watching us,” Prata said. “We wanted her to know how to do it. We did not force her to stay on the bed.”

She asked if the couple had sex in the kitchen while the girl was present. “Yes,” Prata replied. “We don’t believe in hiding anything.”

The investigator asked why Prata thought a girl needed to know about sexual acts at the age of 8 or 9. “We wanted to prepare her so she would know how,” he said.

The investigator asked if a child that age can comprehend sex. “Animals do it all the time,” Prata said.

The investigator asked, “Do you think that animals function at a lower intelligence level than humans?”

“Not really,” Prata said.

She asked if he would have liked to have seen his parents having sex. “Yes,” he replied. “I probably would have learned something.”

The interview concluded with the investigator asking Prata if he understood that he had done psychological damage to the girl. “No,” Prata said.

Ciesla then spoke with the girl’s mother, asking why she thought it was important for her daughter to know how to perform sex acts. “When I was married to my first husband, my mother-in-law and husband would make fun of me” because, Arnold said, she didn’t know a slang term for oral sex. “I didn’t want anyone to make fun of [her daughter].”

The investigator asked, “So you thought that you would teach her the right way?”

“Yes,” Arnold replied.

The investigator asked, “What made you think that an 8-year-old needed to learn this?”

“David,” Arnold replied, referring to Prata.

The investigator asked Arnold if she would have liked to watch her parents having sex. “Yes,” she replied.

The interview concluded with Ciesla saying, “You know that you will not be seeing your daughter for Christmas?” Arnold said, “No. I didn’t know that.”

Ciesla immediately notified the Woonsocket police. And, on Dec. 30, 2004, a Massachusetts Department of Social Services protective investigator, RoAnn Vecchia, interviewed the girl at her father’s home in North Adams.

The girl reported that while living in Woonsocket, she saw her mother and Prata having sex more than once and in different rooms. The girl said that “sometimes she thought David was hurting her mom because when they were having sex her mom would make these noises that she thought were from pain,” Vecchia’s report says. The girl “asked her mom if David was hurting her, and her mom told her no.”

The girl said her mother and Prata never touched her or tried to include her in their sexual activity, according to the report.

The girl told the investigator “she was afraid that her mom and David would go to jail and she did not want that to happen.” The interview ended when the girl picked up an Etch A Sketch and “would not engage further,” the investigator said.

The attorney general’s office reviewed the case, and the Woonsocket police arrested Prata and Arnold on Feb. 10, 2005. At the time, Arnold’s daughter was living with her biological father in North Adams. Prata and Arnold were arraigned in Family Court the following day on child-neglect charges, and the court issued no-contact orders.

Yesterday, attorney general’s spokesman Michael J. Healey said Prata and Arnold are out on bail, pending a March 19 pretrial conference before Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. Prata’s lawyer, C. Daniel Schrock, and Arnold’s lawyer, Glenn S. Sparr, did not return calls seeking comment.

If convicted, Prata and Arnold could face one to three years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

efitzpat@projo.com