Court Opinion

ID: 9671489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:37:29.745511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.233694
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
It seems almost ironic that the majority allows Hildreth to escape being found a child abuser because “he could not reasonably have foreseen that the rather limited striking of Amanda’s buttocks would produce physical injury.” It seems to me that he was bent on inflicting such an injury. His actions were painstakingly deliberate. People are commonly presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts, and it strikes me as preposterous to pretend Hildreth did not expect a physical injury to result from striking the child so hard with a wooden spoon as to leave her marked for days.
Hildreth succeeded in his efforts. In State v. Arnold, 543 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1996), we affirmed a conviction of child endangerment in violation of Iowa Code sections 726.6(1) and 726.6(3) (1993), holding the evidence sup*161ported findings that Arnold, in disciplining his daughter
a. Knowingly acted in a manner creating a substantial risk to [the child’s] physical, mental or emotional health or safety, or
b. Intentionally used unreasonable force, torture or cruelty that resulted in physical injury to [the child].
Amanda’s bruise admittedly is not as severe as the three or perhaps four involved in Arnold. But I think the administrative rule, quoted by the majority, is an eminently reasonable definition of physical injury. Hil-dreth easily qualifies as an abuser under that definition.
I would affirm.
NEUMAN and ANDREASEN, JJ., join this dissent.