Opinion ID: 2222735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SDCL 26-8-22.10 provides:

Text: [E]vidence that child abuse has occurred shall constitute prima facie evidence that such child is neglected or dependent and such evidence shall be sufficient to support an adjudication under this section. Abuse is not statutorily defined. The history of this statute is reflective of the change and growing concern of society with the phenomenon of child abuse. The prima facie aspect of this statute was added by the legislature in 1971. The term abuse was not written into our state's dependency statute until 1968 (SDCL 26-8-6). Health care and law enforcement officials are now required to report child abuse (SDCL 26-10-10 through 26-10-13); these statutes provide immunity to reporting parties (SDCL 26-10-15). It appears that the legislature, in adopting these subsequent measures, intended that abused children be found dependent children. Further examination of the statutes reveal that the requirement to report child abuse was expanded by the legislature in 1973 and 1975. In 1975, SDCL 26-10-12.1 was changed to shift the responsibility of child abuse investigation from the courts to that of the state's attorney, and mandating that action be taken and counsel be appointed for the child. This is exactly what transpired here. Appellees maintain that simply striking or slapping the child in one isolated instance does not constitute abuse. This court has reviewed the colored slides of this traumatized baby and notes the serious bruising and swelling on the baby's face. It is obvious that a three and one-half month old baby is completely dependent and cannot sustain life without the aid of adult persons. A deliberate blow to such an infant is without any legitimate purpose as the child cannot be errant, disobedient, wrong, or mischievous. Corporal punishment to such a helpless human being has no teaching benefit or saving grace. To hold otherwise, is to say that deliberately and forcefully striking a tiny infant in the face is minimal adequate child care in South Dakota. We hold that such a striking causing this particular injury was serious, dangerous, and abusive under the statute. The state proved dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court erred in granting appellees' motion to dismiss under the state of the record and the evidence produced in trial.