## Facts

- Eight-year-old S.K., who had serious pre-existing psychological problems, set fire to her bed and initially concealed responsibility.
- In response, S.K.’s mother, V.L., struck S.K. with a belt about twice; S.K.’s stepfather also used a belt.
- S.K. exhibited unusual behavior during the incident (including staring into space), consistent with her documented mental condition.
- V.L. later took S.K. to a hospital for psychiatric concerns; staff observed welts and bruises consistent with belt strikes and reported the injuries.
- In a neglect/abuse proceeding, the trial court limited the fact-finding hearing to the July 13, 1986 beating episode.
- V.L. admitted that she and the stepfather caused the welts and bruises.
- A psychologist testified that the belt beating was clinically inappropriate given S.K.’s mental condition.
- The trial court found S.K. an abused and neglected child and found that V.L. abused and neglected S.K.
- V.L. and S.K. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s reliance on a statutory inference concerning unexplained injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, under a preponderance standard, supported a finding that S.K. was an abused and neglected child based on the belt beating following the fire incident.
2. Whether the trial court’s reference to the permissive inference in D.C. Code § 16-2316(c) improperly shifted the burden of proof to the parents.
3. Whether the trial court correctly applied an objective “reasonable parent” standard in determining that the corporal punishment constituted abuse in light of S.K.’s known psychological condition.

## Decision

- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s abuse/neglect adjudication.
- The court held the evidence sufficient under the preponderance standard to support a finding of abuse and neglect.
- The court approved use of an objective standard and agreed that a reasonable parent, knowing S.K.’s severe mental problems, would have restrained the reaction and avoided the belt beating.
- Although the trial court “needlessly” referenced § 16-2316(c) because responsibility for the injuries was admitted, the reference did not shift the ultimate burden of proof and was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- In a neglect proceeding, the government must prove abuse/neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Whether corporal punishment constitutes “abuse” is evaluated under an objective standard: what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, including what the parent knew about the child’s vulnerabilities.
- D.C. Code § 16-2316(c) permits a permissive inference of neglect from certain injuries not satisfactorily explained; the inference does not itself establish neglect and does not shift the ultimate burden of proof from the government.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an abuse/neglect adjudication where parents inflicted belt-caused welts and bruises on a child with known severe psychological problems, holding that the objective reasonable-parent standard supported the finding and that a trial court’s unnecessary reference to the permissive inference for unexplained injuries did not alter the government’s burden or require reversal.


In re S.K. & V.L., 564 A.2d 1382 (D.C. 1989)