## Facts

- A mother disciplined her seven-year-old son, Ethan, after he threw food at dinner and disobeyed her, striking his bare buttocks about six times with an imitation-leather belt.
- The next day, a report to the child protection agency led to a court-ordered investigation; a social worker observed bruises on Ethan’s lower back and learned of bruises on his buttocks.
- A district court placed Ethan under protective supervision and ordered a medical exam.
- A physician who examined Ethan found bruises (and a bruise and scrape on his abdominal wall) but indicated he would not have suspected abuse or made a mandatory report.
- The district court adjudicated Ethan an “abused child” under the Child Protection Act.
- On de novo review, the superior court affirmed; the supreme court remanded for reconsideration under precedent requiring proof of “harm or threatened harm” to the child’s health or welfare.
- On remand, the superior court again found abuse, despite testimony that Ethan bruised easily, was active immediately after the punishment, and that bruising alone did not show medical harm; the agency presented no witnesses at the post-remand hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Ethan was an “abused child” under RSA 169-C:3, II(d), requiring proof of harm or threatened harm to the child’s health or welfare.
2. Whether the superior court’s abuse adjudication was unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s abuse adjudication.
- The court held the record did not contain sufficient evidence that the bruises from the corporal punishment caused harm or threatened harm to Ethan’s health or welfare.
- The court emphasized the agency’s failure to present evidence rebutting testimony that Ethan was not harmed and that bruising alone did not establish harm on this record.
- The court noted that bruises may, in an appropriate case, support an inference of harm or threatened harm, but the State must prove that element on the evidence presented.

## Legal Principles

- Under RSA 169-C:3, II(d), an “abused child” finding based on non-accidental physical injury requires proof of harm or threatened harm to the child’s health or welfare.
- Appellate review of superior-court findings in abuse proceedings is deferential, but reversal is required when findings are unsupported by evidence or legally erroneous.
- New Hampshire law recognizes justified parental force to prevent or punish misconduct (RSA 627:6, I), but a child-protection abuse adjudication still requires proof that the conduct caused or threatened harm within the meaning of RSA chapter 169-C.

## Conclusion

Because the State did not prove that Ethan’s bruising from the spanking amounted to harm or threatened harm to his health or welfare, the abuse adjudication under RSA 169-C:3, II(d) could not stand and was reversed.


In re Ethan H., 609 A.2d 1222 (N.H. 1992)