Opinion ID: 2584054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The alleged inability of Ruth and John to supervise the child safely

Text: Constance and Clark contend that the special master clearly erred in rejecting evidence that Ruth and John had allowed Bernard to suffer bruising, lacerations, cuts, bite marks, toenail problems, and improperly fitted shoes while in their care. Constance testified at trial, with the aid of photographs and a videotape, that she had alerted DFYS to such problems when visiting Bernard, but that no action had been taken. The special master found that [n]one of the marks appears to a medically untrained eye to be a significant injury or anything beyond ailments and minor injuries which would be ordinary in an active toddler. Having reviewed the photographic evidence, we agree with the special master that these injuries do not appear to be significant. We hold that the special master's findings on this point are not clearly erroneous.