## Facts

- A mother used corporal punishment to discipline her 13-year-old son for disrespectful behavior.
- The next day, the child appeared at school with a bruised, swollen eye.
- During the ensuing investigation, the mother acknowledged striking her son while disciplining him.
- The child reported that the mother’s blow to his face was accidental.
- In administrative proceedings, the fact-finder determined that the mother intended to strike the back of the child’s head with her knuckles as punishment.
- The fact-finder also determined that the child suddenly turned his head, causing the mother to strike his face and injure his eye rather than the back of his head.
- Based on the incident, the agency made an “indicated” finding of child abuse and sought to maintain the mother’s listing in the child abuse registry.
- On judicial review, a Maryland circuit court concluded that, on the administrative findings, the mother’s conduct did not amount to “indicated child abuse.”
- The agency appealed from the circuit court’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent commits “indicated child abuse” when the parent intends a disciplinary blow but, because the child unexpectedly moves, the parent accidentally strikes the child’s face and causes a temporary eye injury.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the administrative findings did not legally support an “indicated child abuse” determination.
- Accepting the agency fact-finding that the mother intended to strike the back of the head and that the facial contact occurred only because the child turned, the court treated the injury as accidental for purposes of the child abuse statute.
- The court declined to treat a transitory bruise from corporal punishment as automatically establishing indicated child abuse.

## Legal Principles

- An “indicated” child abuse finding requires credible evidence that the conduct fits the statutory definition of “abuse,” not merely that an injury occurred.
- Where the statute limits physical abuse to injury inflicted by “other than accidental means,” the agency must show more than an intentional act of discipline; the injury itself must be non-accidental under the governing definition.
- Courts may accept an agency’s factual findings while independently reviewing whether those facts meet the legal definition of child abuse.
- Corporal punishment, standing alone, is not automatically child abuse; the legal question turns on the statutory elements, including the accidental/non-accidental character of the injury.

## Conclusion

Because the administrative findings showed that the mother intended to strike the back of her son’s head as discipline and the eye injury occurred only after the child suddenly turned, the resulting injury was accidental within the meaning of Maryland’s child abuse framework, so the conduct did not support an “indicated child abuse” finding or registry placement.


Department of Human Resources v. Howard, 897 A.2d 904 (2006)