Interest of M v., 2011 S.D. 81

Child born Aug 2008; overall healthy aside from jaundice and eye infection; Mother stayed home while Father cared for Child after Mother returned to work.
On Oct 1, 2008 Father noticed bruising; Mother characterized marks as allergies but acknowledged bruises.
Oct 2, 2008 Father summoned emergency services; Child was in critical condition and subsequently treated for non-accidental trauma.
Adjudicatory hearing in April 2009; court found Child abused or neglected under SDCL 26-8A-2(1) and (3) but not under (5).
May 5, 2010, court dismissed as to Mother and returned custody with six-month supervision; July 2010 Father acquitted; August 2010 State moved to dismiss; court dismissed as to Father; Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether separate findings about Mother and Father were required	Mother argues need for separate culpability findings	State contends adjudication focused on Child’s status, not parental culpability	Not required; status adjudication suffices
Whether the finding of abuse/neglect was clearly erroneous	Mother contends evidence does not support abuse/neglect	State contends medical testimony supports non-accidental injury	Not clearly erroneous; supported by medical evidence
Whether an alternative finding under SDCL 26-8A-2(5) was required	Mother argues court should have made alternative (5) finding	Court could sustain on (1) and (3) without (5)	Court not required to make (5) finding where (1) and (3) proven

DeHaven v. Hall, 2008 S.D. 57 (2008 S.D. 57) (findings on disputed facts not always needed; materiality controls)
Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Pipestone Livestock Auction Mkt., Inc., 2008 S.D. 48 (2008 S.D. 48) (material facts determine necessity of findings)
Davies v. Toms, 75 S.D. 273 (1954) (findings on issues not necessary to determine action when not material)
In re S.L., 419 N.W.2d 689 (S.D. 1988) (any one subsection proven suffices to sustain abuse/neglect adjudication)