## Facts

- Ben Simons disciplined his two-year-old child for refusing to answer respectfully with “yes, sir” or “yes, ma’am.”
- At church, Simons took the child outside and swatted him twice on the bottom; the child then complied.
- That evening at home, Simons warned the child he would be spanked if he did not say “yes, sir,” then spanked him with a wooden backscratcher.
- The child wore pants and a diaper; Simons struck the child three times on the buttocks, then hugged and consoled him for about 15 minutes and repeated the instruction.
- The three-swats-plus-consoling sequence was repeated eight times over roughly two hours, for about 24 swats total; the child cried after each spanking and sometimes before being struck.
- A report of suspected child abuse was made; a social worker observed bruises on the child’s buttocks.
- County social services found the child was abused and entered a “services required” determination; the Department of Human Services (DHS) upheld that decision.

## Issues

1. Whether DHS’s findings that Simons inflicted statutory “bodily injury” and used “unreasonable force” were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether the child-abuse statutory provisions were unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to parental corporal punishment.
3. Whether the statutory terms governing abuse, “bodily injury,” and “unreasonable force” were unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- Affirmed the district court judgment upholding DHS’s final decision.
- Held DHS’s findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Simons inflicted bodily injury (bruising) and used unreasonable force.
- Rejected facial and as-applied constitutional challenges, holding the relevant child-abuse statutes were not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.

## Legal Principles

- On judicial review of an administrative decision, the reviewing court evaluates the agency decision and asks whether findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the conclusions follow from the findings, and the decision accords with law.
- Bruising can satisfy the statutory definition of “bodily injury” in child-protection proceedings.
- Parental discipline may justify some force, but repeated striking with an implement, over an extended period, causing bruising to a very young child can be found “unreasonable,” removing the conduct from statutory justification.
- A statute is not overbroad merely because it reaches some parental corporal punishment; limiting abuse to conduct involving bodily injury and unreasonable force avoids prohibiting a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.
- Statutory terms with defined meanings (e.g., “bodily injury”) and standards assessed through objective factors (e.g., “unreasonable force,” considering the child’s age, method, frequency, duration, and resulting injury) provide adequate notice and do not invite arbitrary enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the administrative determination that Simons abused his two-year-old child and that services were required because the evidence supported findings of bruising and unreasonable force, and the governing child-abuse statutes were sufficiently definite and limited to withstand overbreadth and vagueness challenges.


Simons v. N.D. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 803 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 2011)