A. I., Matter of, No. 12774

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: FOSHEIM; WOLLMAN; HENDERSON; HENDERSON
• Citation: 289 N.W.2d 247
• Decision Date: 27 February 1980
• Docket Number: No. 12774
• Parties: In the Matter of A. I., Alleged Dependent Child.

Page 247

289 N.W.2d 247 In the Matter of A. I., Alleged Dependent Child. No. 12774. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Argued Nov. 14, 1979.
Decided Feb. 27, 1980.

Page 248

Janice C. Godtland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent State of South Dakota; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.

Mary Sue Donohue of Donohue & Donohue, Sioux Falls, for child.

John C. Quaintance, Sioux Falls, for appellant father.

FOSHEIM, Justice.

This is an appeal from an adjudication of dependency and neglect and a disposition terminating appellant-father's parental rights. We affirm.

The subject child, A.I., was born to appellant and K.K. in mid-1978. The parents lived together out of wedlock. The evidence reveals that on October 5, 1978, K.K. brought A.I. to a hospital for treatment of a respiratory problem. The examining pediatrician, however, noticed bruises located about the face, head, neck, chest, back, buttock, and left leg. X-rays revealed a broken arm. The buttock also exhibited an excoriation of the skin due to the chemical breakdown of urine. The physician's diagnosis was pneumonia and "battered child syndrome."

Adjudicatory and dispositional hearings were held in late November and early December of 1978. Testimony established that K.K. had offered various and conflicting explanations for A.I.'s condition. A Sioux Falls police detective quoted K.K. as saying the child fell out of her crib and bruised her head and also bumped her head on a stroller tray. She also claimed that she dropped the baby on the floor in an attempt to protect herself from an assault by another person. She reiterated the crib and assault incidents to an investigating social worker, but this time stated that A.I. actually fell out of the stroller onto the street. K.K. and appellant subsequently reverted to the original stroller tray version and further claimed that some of the child's symptoms were an allergic reaction to their pet cat. K.K. gave the crib explanation to examining medical personnel, but also expressed her belief that an acquaintance was responsible for the bruises and fractured arm. At the same time, according to the detective's testimony, she admitted throwing the child into the crib on two occasions and once striking the baby on the arm with the side of her hand. An acquaintance testified that, on one occasion, she witnessed K.K. strike the infant and that, as a general matter, K.K. treated the child very roughly. Various persons testified that the bruises on A.I.'s body were readily visible to the casual observer.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that he did not provide proper parental care and, while present in the home and acting as a custodian of A.I., permitted her to suffer mistreatment and abuse. It is true that no evidence was introduced regarding direct acts of appellant which contributed to A.I.'s injuries. The obvious extent and appalling nature of the child's injuries, however, indicate that appellant knew or should have known of her condition. This fact, coupled with his failure to seek medical attention for the child's injuries, leads us to conclude that the findings of the trial court were not clearly erroneous. SDCL 15-6-52(a); Matter of B.E., 287 N.W.2d 91 (S.D.1979); In the Interest of D.K., 245 N.W.2d 644 (S.D.1976).

We cannot agree with appellant's further contention that certain findings of fact and conclusions of law entered for purposes of disposition were erroneous and that the trial court erred in not employing the least restrictive alternative. The court found that appellant was immature and exhibited a lack of parental care and concern for A.I. Testimony at the dispositional hearing established that appellant did not participate during visits (from the Visiting Nurses Association) designed to aid the parents in developing adequate parenting skills. On at least one occasion, he preferred to work on model airplanes. His lack of interest was further evidenced by his failure to appear at the dispositional hearing. Appellant claims that the court should not have noted this fact because the reason for his absence related to sleeping patterns necessitated by night employment. However, appellant's

Page 249

refusal to briefly modify his sleeping schedule in order to appear at and participate in a proceeding vital to his future relationship with his own child is significant. This is particularly true where the social worker testified that appellant's attitude toward counseling sessions and court proceedings was one of apathy and indifference. Further, during visits between the parents and...