In re Interest of McKenzi D.

SUMMARY: Evidence showing that the father spanked or hit his child on the buttocks, thighs and legs to the extent that deep redness was visible two days after the incident and that the father has been warned by DHHS repeatedly for inappropriate discipline was sufficient for adjudication under 43-237(3)(a). 

McKenzi, DOB 3/28/02, is the daughter of father Floyd and mother Melissa, who divorced in 2003. On December 6, 2007, the father picked up McKenzi from school after receiving a call that McKenzi had wet her pants. He brought her home, disciplined her and returned her to school. Later that day, the mother notice red marks on McKenzi’s buttocks, thighs and upper legs and called police. A responding police officer also saw significant enough redness to cause concern. The father admitted to spanking McKenzi. McKenzi testified that her father spanked her hard on her bare bottm, that it hurt and she cried and asked him to stop but he wouldn’t. McKenzi’s sister, Morgan, also testified that she has seen her father spank McKenzi and that at times she has felt like leaving to find someone to help. The father has a past history with DHHS about inappropriate discipline, including removing McKenzi’s clothing before spanking and using the discipline for release of frustration. The court noted after trial, “[t]hese pictures (of the redness) show a beating. This is not discipline. This is a beating. This child was hit repeatedly.”

The Court of Appeals upheld the adjudication. It noted that pictures taken two days after the incident still showed significant redness on McKenzi’s body and that the father had been repeatedly warned about his disciplinary practices. It rejected the father’s claim that the evidence of redness did not warrant adjudication because there were no injuries warranting medical intervention, as in In re Interest of D.S., 232 Neb. 345. The Court of Appeals interpreted the language in D.S. stating that medical treatment was not sought as not being a prerequisite for adjudication but rather as an indication of the need for additional supporting evidence in a case that had little.