In re M.K. Juvenile, 198 Vt. 233

Five-year-old M.K. was removed and adjudicated CHINS after a surveillance video showed his mother grab and forcefully fling him onto a gravel driveway and throw a toy at him; the incident occurred April 20, 2014.
The property manager, a social worker, and police viewed the video; DCF obtained an emergency care order and filed a CHINS petition.
At the merits hearing the video was played; the mother and father testified for the mother, while the property manager, social worker, and investigating officer testified for the State.
The family court, having viewed the video, found the mother’s actions constituted abuse and adjudicated M.K. CHINS; the younger child was not adjudicated CHINS.
Mother argued the grainy, short, silent video and lack of injury made the evidence insufficient; she asked the court to adopt the § 4912 reporting-definition of “abuse” (or Black’s common-law meaning) for CHINS purposes.
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed for clear error on factual findings, declined to adopt § 4912’s definition for juvenile CHINS proceedings but used it as guidance, and affirmed the CHINS adjudication.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State / Juvenile’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove abuse supporting CHINS	Video is grainy, silent, short; mother credible; no proof of injury; incident was defensive/protective conduct	Video and witness testimony show violent grabbing, flinging, throwing toy and kicking motion that placed child at risk	Affirmed: findings supported by video and other evidence; conduct constituted abuse
Whether CHINS definition of “abuse” should incorporate 33 V.S.A. § 4912 reporting definition	Court should adopt § 4912 definition (or Black’s Law Dictionary) for CHINS	§ 4912 pertains to registry/reporting and has different legislative purpose than juvenile proceedings	Court declined to adopt § 4912 as controlling for CHINS but allowed it to inform analysis
Whether actual physical injury is required to find abuse	Mother: absence of bruising or injury shows no abuse	State: abuse can be shown by conduct creating substantial risk of harm; CHINS is preventative	Court: no requirement of actual injury; risk-creating conduct may support CHINS
Weight to give video vs. witness credibility on appellate review	Mother: trial court found her credible; appellate court should question video-based findings	State: trial court properly viewed video and credited parts of testimony supporting video findings	Court: defers to trial court’s factual findings (clearly erroneous standard); affirmed reliance on video plus testimony

In re D.D., 194 Vt. 508, 82 A.3d 1143 (Vt. 2013) (standard of review for CHINS factual findings)
In re D.B., 175 Vt. 618, 833 A.2d 1246 (Vt. 2003) (role of credible evidence in upholding findings)
In re M.E., 189 Vt. 114, 15 A.3d 112 (Vt. 2010) (distinguishing child-protection registry statutes from juvenile CHINS proceedings)
In re L.M., 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014) (refusing to rely on § 4912/registry rules in CHINS analysis)
In re B.R., 97 A.3d 867 (Vt. 2014) (CHINS focus on child welfare and temporary curtailment of parental rights)
E.J.R. v. Young, 162 Vt. 219, 646 A.2d 1284 (Vt. 1994) (no requirement of actual completed harm for CHINS)
People v. D.A.K., 596 P.2d 747 (Colo. 1979) (definition of abuse in reporting statute not necessarily controlling in dependency proceedings)
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (deference to trial court factual findings)
State v. Walli, 799 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011) (deferential review when video and testimony are both in record)
People v. Valle, 939 N.E.2d 10 (Ill. App. Ct.) (video does not eliminate role of live testimony in factfinding)
Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App.) (clearly erroneous standard applies to facts based on video)
In re P.M., 156 Vt. 303, 592 A.2d 862 (Vt. 1991) (use of common-sense standards to define troubling conduct)
State v. David F. Sr., 911 P.2d 235 (N.M. Ct. App.) (placing child in danger can constitute abuse absent actual injury)