S.S.P. v. State of Utah
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----
State of Utah, in the interest
of L.P., a person under eighteen years of age.
______________________________
S.S.P. and R.P.,
Appellees,
v.
State of Utah,
Appellant.
OPINION
(For Official Publication)
Case No. 981535-CA
F I L E D
May 13, 1999
1999 UT App 157
-----
Third District Juvenile,
Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Joseph W.
Anderson
Attorneys:
Jan Graham and John Peterson,
Salt Lake City, for Appellant
John E. Laherty, Salt Lake
City, for Appellees
Martha Pierce and Christine
S. Decker, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem
-----
Before Judges Greenwood,
Bench, and Davis.
DAVIS, Judge:
¶1
The State of Utah appeals
from the Third District Juvenile Court's determination that the State "failed
to meet its burden of proving abuse or neglect of the child by clear and
convincing evidence." Because the juvenile court did not apply the appropriate
statutory definition in determining that L.P. was not an abused child,
we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
¶2
L.P. is a fourteen-year-old
child, the oldest of four children in the household. S.S.P. is L.P.'s natural
mother. This appeal arises from the following chain of events. First, during
an argument, L.P. was struck in the chest by her mother with "moderately
hard force." The next day, L.P. reported the incident to school officials,
two of whom observed redness in L.P.'s chest area. Later that day, L.P.
reported tenderness and pain in her chest area to Lori Thomassen, a Child
Protection Services worker. Upon examining L.P.'s chest area, Thomassen
observed no redness. Subsequently, the Utah Division of Child and Family
Services (DCFS) took L.P. into protective custody. It was then discovered
that two months prior to the incident described above, S.S.P. had struck
L.P. in the face with her hand while L.P. was arguing with her sister at
church, giving L.P. a swollen lip. After L.P. reported that her mother
struck her in the chest, DCFS filed a verified petition alleging that L.P.
was an abused child as defined by the Juvenile Court Act under section
78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) of the Utah Code.(1)
¶3
At the conclusion of an
evidentiary hearing on the petition, the trial judge asked the parties
to brief the following issue: "At what point does the parental discipline
of a minor child cross over into conduct that constitutes child abuse?"
After reviewing the trial briefs, the juvenile court attempted to reconcile
the broad definition of an abused child found in the Juvenile Court Act
with the right of a parent to inflict corporal punishment. The juvenile
court analyzed a number of "abuse-related" statutes(2)
and termination of parental rights cases and then apparently adopted legal
standards therefrom, effectively narrowing the definition of an abused
child found in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i). In doing so, the juvenile court
made the following ruling:
There really can
be no fixed standard for when parental discipline becomes abuse since all
children, parents, and circumstances are different. In this case there
is no clear and convincing evidence of abuse, but rather clear and convincing
evidence of frustration of parents and children trying to deal with each
other in heated situations.
In its conclusion, the juvenile
court stated, "[t]he State has failed to meet its burden of proving abuse
or neglect of the child by clear and convincing evidence."(3)
The State now challenges that legal conclusion on the ground that it was
based upon a legal definition of abuse not found in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i).
S.S.P. urges us to approve the definition apparently relied upon by the
juvenile court and adopt criteria for determining when corporal punishment
of a minor becomes abuse within the scope of section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i),
including the following:
1) the need for
the application of corporal punishment; 2) the relationship between the
need and the amount of punishment administered; 3) the extent of injury
inflicted; and 4) whether the punishment was administered in a good faith
effort to maintain discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.
Wise v. Pea Ridge Sch. Dist.,
855 F.2d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 1988).
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4
The issue before this court
is whether the juvenile court properly applied the appropriate definition
of an abused child in making its determination that L.P. is not an abused
child. This is a question of law that we review under a "correction of
error" standard. See State v. Harmon, 910 P.2d 1196, 1199
(Utah 1995). "Although we review [this question] for correctness, we may
still grant a trial court discretion in its application of the law to a
given fact situation." Jeffs v. Stubbs, 971 P.2d 1234, 1244 (Utah
1998).
ANALYSIS
¶5
Under the Juvenile Court
Act, an abused child "includes a minor less than 18 years of age who has
suffered or been threatened with nonaccidental physical or mental harm."
Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1998); accord State
in re K.T.S., 925 P.2d 603, 604 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). We interpret
and apply the terms in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) "according to their commonly
accepted meaning unless the ordinary meaning of the term results in an
application that is either 'unreasonably confused, inoperable, . . . or
in blatant contradiction of the express purpose of the statute.'" State
v. Souza, 846 P.2d 1313, 1317 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Morton
Int'l, Inc. v. Auditing Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 590 (Utah 1991)). Because section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i)is unambiguous,
we will not look beyond its plain language to ascertain legislative intent.
See DeLand v. Uintah County, 945 P.2d 172, 174 (Utah Ct.
App. 1997) (citations and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
961 P.2d 326 (Utah 1998). Instead, "[w]e merely assume the Legislature
carefully and advisedly chose the statute's words and phrases." Id.
¶6
The statutes referred to
in footnote two, above, and relied upon by the juvenile court, although
creating apparently conflicting definitions of what "punishment" of a minor
child is permissible, are nevertheless impertinent to this case. It is
incumbent upon the juvenile court to apply the proper definition from the
appropriate statute. Although the sections referenced in footnote two indicate
that physical punishment of a minor child may be exempt from criminal prosecution
in certain instances, we are not reviewing a criminal case and therefore
criminal statutes are inapplicable. Nor are we reviewing a case involving
punishment inflicted upon a minor child by a school official; therefore
section 53A-11-802(1) is also inapplicable. Here, we are reviewing a juvenile
court proceeding held to determine whether that court may assert jurisdiction
over L.P.,
see Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-104(1)(c) (Supp. 1998),
and the concept of varying definitions for varying purposes is not foreign
to our jurisprudence. Cf. Kennecott Copper v. Salt Lake County,
799 P.2d 1156, 1163 (Utah 1990). Thus, the juvenile court should have applied
the definition of an abused child found in the Juvenile Court Act of 1996.
See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1998).
¶7
The State and Guardian ad
Litem agree with the juvenile court's observation that "all children, parents
and circumstances are different." They argue that precisely for that reason,
the broad definition of an abused child found in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i)
is necessary, and that the focus of the juvenile court should be on evidentiary
findings to determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, a child
has "suffered or been threatened with nonaccidental physical or mental
harm." See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1998).
We agree. Because there are a myriad of circumstances with countless permutations,
which may or may not justify intervention of the juvenile court, it is
essential that the definition of an abused child remain broad so the juvenile
court can effectively apply section 78-3a-104(1)(c).(4)
¶8
Rather than attempt to change
the definition of an "abused child," the juvenile court must instead focus
upon making detailed findings supporting its ultimate decision so that
a body of case law can be developed. Cf. First Nat'l Bank in
Fort Collins v. Rostek, 514 P.2d 314, 320 (Colo. 1973) (stating "as
the body of case law develops, we can lay down more specific . . . rules");
Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d 987, 997 (Me. 1982) ("'What is needed
is . . . an attempt to develop a body of case law that gives courts improved
guidance'") (citation omitted). Such factual findings may include, but
are not limited to, the following: whether the acts complained of were
in reasonable discipline of a minor by a parent or one in loco parentis,
see Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-401(3) (1995); evidence of any bruises,
contusions, or abrasions on the child, see id. § 76-5-109(1)(c)
(Supp. 1998); "the need for the application of corporal punishment; . .
. the relationship between the need and the amount of punishment administered;
. . . the extent of injury inflicted; . . . whether the punishment was
administered in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or maliciously
and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," Wise, 855 F.2d at 564; evidence of unreasonably cruel punishment such as beatings
with a belt, paddle, hose, or other object, see Wood v. State,
450 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Ark. 1970); whether the child has been provided with
suitable food and clothing, see State v. Johnson, 890 P.2d 641, 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995); evidence of verbal threats or verbal abuse;
and whether the incident was isolated or rather a step in an apparent progression
of mistreatment. None of the factors listed above is necessarily dispositive
of whether a minor is an abused child within the meaning of section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i).
Instead, these evidentiary factors should guide the juvenile court as it
exercises its broad discretion in making that determination.
¶9
In addition, comprehensive
findings will enable an appellate court to review abuse determinations
more effectively. For example, if the juvenile court's findings support
an ultimate finding that the conduct complained of was in reasonable discipline
of a minor, the inquiry may end. The juvenile court has a vantage point
that enables it to determine whether punishment of a minor child is reasonable
discipline or falls within the ambit of section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i). Because
of the complex contextual nature of child abuse proceedings, and the significant
impact of a determination of abuse or neglect,(5)
the juvenile court is in a far better position to evaluate the evidence
than an appellate court, and the best interests of the children and families
involved in these proceedings will be served by preserving the broad discretion
of the juvenile court.
¶10
In this case, it is evident
that the juvenile court did not apply the proper statutory definition in
determining that L.P. is not an abused child. On remand, that court should
apply the definition supplied by section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) to detailed
findings in order to determine whether L.P. is an abused child.
CONCLUSION
¶11
Insofar as the juvenile
court deviated from the definition in section 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) in determining
whether L.P. is an abused child, it committed an error of law. Accordingly,
we remand for entry of such additional findings as the juvenile court deems
appropriate and for application of the definition in section 78-3a-103(a)(i)
to those findings.
______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
-----
¶12
I CONCUR:
______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
-----
BENCH, Judge (concurring):
¶13
In appealing this case,
the State urges that "abuse" for purposes of juvenile court jurisdiction
over a child is different from the "abuse" that justifies terminating parental
rights. I agree that the trial court erred in blending the two standards.
I therefore concur in remanding the case for additional findings.
¶14
"The relationship between
parents or guardians and children is a delicate and complex one, and standards
designed to regulate this relationship must necessarily provide some flexibility
while at the same time effectuating the state policy of protecting children
from abuse." People v. Jennings, 641 P.2d 276, 280 (Colo. 1982).
In deciding whether L.P. was abused, the trial court properly discussed
parental discipline. As framed by the trial court, "The issue before the
court is: at what point does parental discipline become abuse?"
¶15
Despite the broad language
of section 78-3a-103(1)(a), our common law dictates that reasonable discipline
by a parent cannot constitute abuse. See, e.g., Ingraham v. Wright,
430 U.S. 651, 659-61, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 1406-07 (1976) (outlining common
law history of "reasonable corporal punishment"); Bowers v. State,
389 A.2d 341, 348 (Md. Ct. App. 1978) (recognizing common law principle
of parent's use of reasonable force in discipline of child); In re Rodney
C., 398 N.Y.S.2d 511, 514 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977) ("[U]nder the common
law an objective standard of reasonableness has evolved . . . ."); Restatement
(Second) of Torts §§ 147, 150 (1965) (outlining factors of reasonable
parental discipline); see also Utah Code Ann. § 53A-11-802(1)
(1997) (prohibiting infliction of corporal punishment upon a child "unless
written permission has been given by the student's parent or guardian to
do so").
¶16
The principle that reasonable
parental discipline cannot be abuse is expressly included in our criminal
law. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-401(3) (1995) (excluding from
criminal conduct reasonable discipline of minors by parents). It is also
implicitly included in the Juvenile Court Act. See Utah Code Ann.
§ 78-3a-103(n)(ii) (Supp. 1998) (defining legal custody to include
right and duty to train and discipline minor). The fact that the principle
was not expressly stated in the Juvenile Court Act does not delete it from
our common law. See Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-1 (1996) (adopting
common law as rule of decision in Utah courts); see also Cache
County v. Beus, No. 981067-CA, slip op. at 8 (Utah Ct. App. Apr. 29,
1999) ("'We have frequently stated that we will not construe a statute
as abrogating the common law unless the statute clearly expresses such
an intention.'") (quoting Cooperman v. MacNeil, 465 A.2d 879, 882
(N.H. 1983)).
¶17
Rather than analyzing whether
the parent's actions in this case constituted reasonable discipline, the
trial court ruled that mere frustration in heated situations cannot be
abuse. Such a ruling is insufficient to adequately determine the question.
I therefore concur in remanding the case for a more complete explanation
as to why the parent's actions are to be considered reasonable discipline
rather than abuse.
______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
1. An
abused child "includes a minor less than 18 years of age who has suffered
or been threatened with nonaccidental physical or mental harm." Utah
Code Ann. § 78-3a-103(1)(a)(i) (Supp.
1998). We cite to
the most recent version of the Utah Code as a convenience to the reader.
The portions of the statutes quoted in this opinion were the same, in all
material respects, throughout the proceedings.
2. Utah's criminal code, for example, requires a greater showing of harm for an individual to be held criminally responsible for striking a child: "Any person who inflicts upon a child physical injury . . . is guilty of an offense." Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-109(3) (Supp. 1998). "Physical injury" is defined as a bruise or other contusion of the skin, a minor laceration, or an abrasion. See id. § 76-5-109(b).
Section 53A-11-802 of the Utah Code provides: "A school employee may not inflict or cause the infliction of corporal punishment upon a child who is receiving services from the school, unless written permission has been given by the student's parent or guardian to do so." Id. § 53A-11-802(1) (1997). "'Corporal punishment' means the intentional infliction of physical pain upon the body of a minor child as a disciplinary measure." Id. § 53A-11-801(2).
In addition to the statutes mentioned above that allow a certain measure of physical punishment to be inflicted upon a child without subjecting the actor to a legal penalty, Utah law also expressly permits conduct that would otherwise be criminal if the "actor's conduct is reasonable discipline of minors by parents, guardians, teachers, or other persons in loco parentis." Id. § 76-2-401(3) (1995).
3. Despite its ruling on the question of abuse, the juvenile court found jurisdiction based upon dependency, as defined by section 78-3a-103(1)(h) of the Utah Code, due to L.P.'s refusal to return home.
4. Section
78-3a-104(1)(c) provides, in pertinent part, that "[e]xcept as otherwise
provided by law, the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction
in proceedings concerning: . . . (c) a minor who is an abused child . .
. as . . . defined in Section 78-3a-103." Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-104(1)(c)(Supp.
1998).
5. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-103(q)(i)(D) (Supp. 1998) (stating that "neglected child" is minor "who is at risk of being a neglected or abused child . . . because another minor in the same home is a[n] . . . abused child"); id. § 78-3a-301(1)(a) ("If a minor has previously been adjudicated as abused, neglected, or dependent, and a subsequent incident of abuse, neglect, or dependency occurs, that fact constitutes prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the custody of his parent."); id. § 78-3a-301(1)(c) ("If a parent has received actual notice that physical . . . abuse by a person known to the parent has occurred, and there is evidence that the parent has allowed the child to be in the physical presence of the alleged abuser, that fact constitutes prima facie evidence that the child is at substantial risk of being physically . . . abused."); id. § 78-3a-301(1)(j) (Supp. 1998) (stating DCFS may remove child from custody of natural parent if "the minor or another minor residing in the same household has been neglected").
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.