Zimmer, Duncan & Cole

Court Refuses Mother’s Request to Clear Her Name

Police immediately began investigating the father’s role when an infant was rushed to the hospital with unusual bruising and breathing difficulties. The father was charged criminally, while both father and mother were asked to respond to an abuse and neglect complaint filed by the Department of Social Services. The story of this infant boy and his family is told in a case called In the Matter of M.V. (2011 S.D. 81).   

*   *   *

In South Dakota, juveniles are often referred to in court pleadings by their initials.  The young boy in this week’s case, “M.V.” was just a few weeks old when this story begins. His father, Utkarsh, had emigrated from India and was then 28 years old.  The boy’s mother worked as a research physician for Sanford Health in Sioux Falls. After giving birth, M.V.’s mother took a month off.  When she returned to work, her husband, Utkarsh, agreed to care for M.V. during the workdays. On the afternoon of October 1, 2008, Utkarsh heard his young son gasping for air and called 911. At the emergency room, a pediatric doctor noted bruises on M.V.’s legs, shoulders, face, and back, including one in the shape of a human hand. The boy also had extensive brain swelling and a swollen right eye.  Three different doctors concluded that M.V. had experienced “non-accidental trauma.” Utkarsh apparently told one of the doctors that any legal proceedings from this incident should be directed at him, rather than the boy’s mother.  Utkarsh claimed he was responsible for everything, “the good and the bad” since he is the one at home all the time. As for the source of the red marks, Utkarsh suggested they may have resulted from him holding his son in an unusual manner for 10 to 15 minutes while working at his computer desk. At the hospital, M.V. was taken into protective custody by the State of South Dakota.  Upon learning this, Utkarsh said he didn’t want his wife to be prevented from seeing their son.
Despite Utkarsh’s urgings, the Department of Social Services continued to keep the child.  Only after a few months did the Department, begin to reunify M.V. with his mother.  Even afterward, the Department continued to supervise her custody for six months. Utkarsh eventually faced a criminal trial, where a jury acquitted him after a five day trial.
Meanwhile, both parents were facing an abuse and neglect proceeding in Circuit Court, filed by the Department of Social Services. 
The mother claimed she had no knowledge or involvement in the abuse.  She asked the Circuit Court to dismiss her from the proceedings because she was not the cause of the abuse or neglect, or, at a minimum to declare that she was not at fault.  The Court refused, and she appealed.

*   *   *

 An abuse and neglect proceeding is a different breed of lawsuit.  Unlike a criminal trial, an A&N proceeding is not designed to create a winner and a loser, nor does it affix blame or declare guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead, the court determines the “status” of the child.  Specifically, the trial judge is asked to determine whether a child was abused or neglected, and, if so, where is the best possible placement for the child going forward. Both parents are named in these lawsuits as “respondents”, regardless of the custody arrangement or where the abuse occurred. Here, the trial court heard medical testimony and concluded that M.V. had been physically abused.  The court also agreed that M.V. could return to live with his mother.
M.V.’s mother was upset, however, because the trial court’s ruling did not specifically exonerate her.  Instead, the trial court concluded, generally, that M.V. was “subjected to mistreatment or abuse by a parent” and was living in “an environment injurious to the child’s welfare.”  Under state regulations, M.V.’s mother was then automatically placed on a central registry of individuals involved with abuse or neglect.  Since M.V.’s mother worked for Sanford, this designation threatened her job.
On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected her argument.  The Court explained that the purpose of the A&N proceeding was to determine whether M.V. needed the court’s protection, and, if so, who was the best person to provide it.  The guilt or innocence of either parent was for another court to decide.
Similarly, the Court concluded that if M.V.’s mother was improperly placed on a list of registered “abusers”, then her remedy would be to ask the Department to remove her.  If it continued to keep her on the list without justification, she would be entitled to bring a lawsuit against the Department. 
According to court filings, her name has been removed from the registry.