Opinion ID: 1270844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: adjudicatory findings

Text: Appellant contends that the adjudication of the child as dependent and neglected was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We do not agree. In Santosky v. Kramer, supra , the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires proof by clear and convincing evidence in a parental rights termination proceeding. See also In re S.H., supra ; SDCL 26-8-22.10. In defining clear and convincing evidence, we have stated that [i]ts technical meaning has been expressed as the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62, 65 (S.D.1983) (citing Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324, 329, 134 N.W.2d 777, 780 (1965)) (citations omitted). See also In re S.H., 337 N.W.2d 179 (S.D.1983); In re J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1983). It should be noted, of course, that the evidence need not be voluminous or undisputed to satisfy this measure of proof. Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647, 107 N.W.2d 1 (1961). A neglected or dependent child is one [w]ho lacks proper parental care through the actions or omissions of the parent, guardian, or custodian. SDCL 26-8-6(2). The trial court found that S.L.H.'s developmental retardation resulted at least in part from environmental deprivation and that there were instances where the mother provided poor care for the child, including failure to arrange for reliable babysitters and proper supervision for the child. After reviewing the entire record, we cannot say that these findings are clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); In re Estate of Hobelsberger, 85 S.D. 282, 181 N.W.2d 455 (1970). Especially is this true in the light of S.L.H.'s special needs stemming from his physical and mental condition. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in adjudicating S.L.H. as dependent and neglected within the meaning of SDCL 26-8-6(2).