## Facts

- T.A., a 12-year-old boy, lived with his mother (A.L.) and stepfather (J.L.) and had diagnoses of Tourette’s syndrome and ADHD.
- During a household move, T.A. refused to help and was accused of dumping trash onto the floor and throwing a trash can inside the new home.
- J.L. testified that T.A. denied the conduct, became uncontrollable, and J.L. decided corporal punishment was necessary.
- J.L. took T.A. to a bedroom, placed him face-down on a bed, and struck him with a belt approximately eight to ten times; one strike landed “too high,” which J.L. described as accidental.
- A.L. did not intervene, and the parents did not attempt a less severe disciplinary method before the belt spanking.
- DSS investigators later observed multiple bruises on T.A. that persisted for several days.
- T.A. told investigators that some bruises were from the spanking and others were from falling outside.
- The parents argued at hearing that bruises could have come from T.A.’s frequent falls while bicycling or skateboarding.
- Expert testimony could not assign each bruise to a specific cause, but the existence and duration of bruising were not disputed.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported adjudicating T.A. an abused and neglected child when the injury occurred in the course of parental discipline.
2. Whether spanking T.A. with a belt eight to ten times, resulting in bruising lasting days, qualified as reasonable and moderate parental discipline.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s adjudication that T.A. was an abused and neglected child.
- The court held that the belt spanking, given the number of blows and resulting bruising lasting several days, exceeded reasonable and moderate discipline under the circumstances.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings and concluded they were not clearly erroneous.
- The court rejected the argument that uncertainty about the source of each bruise defeated the adjudication, finding the totality of evidence sufficient to meet the clear-and-convincing standard.

## Legal Principles

- An abuse-and-neglect adjudication requires clear and convincing evidence that the statutory definition of an abused or neglected child is satisfied.
- Appellate review gives due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility and will not disturb factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
- Parents may use corporal punishment only if it is reasonable in degree and appropriate to the child and circumstances; the privilege does not extend to excessive force.
- Corporal punishment that produces significant bruising and pain persisting for days, particularly when administered with an instrument and without prior lesser measures, may be found unreasonable and support an abuse-and-neglect adjudication.
- Precise medical attribution of each injury is not required where circumstantial evidence and the overall record establish causation and unreasonableness by clear and convincing evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that parental corporal punishment is permitted only within limits of reasonableness and moderation, and that repeated belt strikes causing bruising lasting several days can constitute excessive discipline supporting an abuse-and-neglect adjudication under the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.


In re Interest of T.A., 663 N.W.2d 225 (S.D. 2003)