## Facts

- D.K. was born premature in August 1974 and suffered serious congenital and respiratory conditions, including lobar emphysema requiring lung surgery, recurrent infections, and dietary restrictions.
- D.K.’s mother, B.K., was 24 years old, lived on public assistance, and cared for D.K. and a toddler sibling without support from D.K.’s father.
- D.K. experienced repeated hospitalizations from late 1974 into 1975; professionals emphasized that his condition required strict hygiene, careful nutrition, and minimized exposure to viruses.
- Public health and social service reports described the home as unsanitary (including strong urine odor) and alleged D.K. was often left in soiled diapers and clothing.
- Evidence included allegations that D.K. was left unfed for a 24-hour period, was exposed to infection risks (e.g., sibling sharing his bottle), and was fed items inconsistent with medical guidance (e.g., orange juice), possibly worsening gastritis.
- In November 1974, the Division of Social Welfare took D.K. into custody; an initial custody order was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and D.K. returned to his mother.
- The State filed a dependency petition in December 1974; the trial court adjudicated D.K. a neglected and dependent child under SDCL 26-8-6 and temporarily removed him from his mother’s custody.

## Issues

1. Whether a preponderance of the evidence supported the adjudication that D.K. was a neglected and dependent child under SDCL 26-8-6.
2. Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in temporarily depriving the mother of custody based on that adjudication.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the adjudicatory order finding D.K. neglected and dependent.
- The court held the trial court’s conclusion was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and was not clearly against the weight of the evidence.
- The Supreme Court also affirmed the dispositional order temporarily removing D.K. from his mother’s custody.

## Legal Principles

- Neglect/dependency adjudications under SDCL 26-8-6 are governed by the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- Appellate review defers to the trial court’s factfinding and credibility determinations and will not disturb findings unless clearly against the weight of the evidence.
- In determining neglect or dependency, courts assess parental acts and omissions in light of the child’s particular needs; extraordinary medical fragility can increase the level of care necessary to protect the child’s health and welfare.
- Poverty alone does not establish neglect; the inquiry centers on whether conditions and caregiving failures place the child’s health or welfare at risk.
- Upon a supported neglect/dependency finding, the court may order temporary removal of custody as a protective disposition when necessary for the child’s immediate welfare.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a neglect and dependency adjudication and a temporary custody removal where professional and medical evidence showed that unsanitary living conditions and caregiving lapses materially endangered a medically fragile infant, and the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence.


People in Interest of D.K., 245 N.W.2d 644 (S.D. 1976)