Opinion ID: 2136773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dependency and neglect as to father

Text: The trial court found that S.M. and H.M. were dependent and neglected as to Father. Father challenges the trial court's findings as clearly erroneous. As stated in In re Interest of M.K., our standard of review is set forth in two statutes: First, [f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. SDCL 15-6-52(a). Second, [i]f the court finds the allegations of the petition are supported ... by clear and convincing evidence in cases concerning neglected and dependent children, the court shall sustain the petition[.] SDCL 26-8-22.10. In re Interest of M.K., 466 N.W.2d 177, 185 (S.D.1991) ( quoting Matter of S.L., 349 N.W.2d 428, 432 (S.D.1984)). Accord Matter of D.H., 354 N.W.2d 185 (S.D.1984). Thus, we must determine whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding the evidence supporting termination was clear and convincing. Id. ( quoting Matter of S.S., 334 N.W.2d 59, 61 (S.D.1983)). In applying the clearly erroneous standard we must bear in mind that our function is not to decide factual issues de novo. The question for the appellate court is not whether it would have made the same findings the trial court did, but whether on the entire evidence it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. ( quoting Matter of S.L., 349 N.W.2d at 432). The evidence at the adjudicatory hearing revealed that while residing with Father, the children lived in unsanitary conditions and were not properly clothed or fed. They were left with babysitters for an often undisclosed and inordinate amount of time, and without adequate food or clothing. The children were hungry and ate substantial quantities of food while in the care of babysitters. Several witnesses at the hearing testified to these facts, including Father's babysitter, the babysitter's father and friend, and Father's landlord. Although Father's testimony conflicted with the testimony of these witnesses, it is the function of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. We hold the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous.