AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the adjudication of two children, Cheyenne C. (Infant Child) and Caylie C. (Older Child), as abused by their parents, Dana H. (Mother) and Carl C. (Father). The Infant Child was hospitalized with various injuries on two occasions, first for a respiratory issue and later for seizures, revealing multiple fractures and subdural hematomas indicative of abuse. Both parents denied knowledge of the cause of the injuries and provided various explanations, including blaming the Older Child, hospital staff, and an evil spirit. They refused to testify at the hearing on Fifth Amendment grounds (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Children, Youth and Families Department): Argued that the children were abused and neglected by Mother and Father, based on the injuries sustained by Infant Child and the circumstances surrounding those injuries (para 3).
• Respondent-Appellant (Carl C.): Argued that the statute under which the children were adjudicated as abused is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him and contested the finding of abuse without specific identification of the perpetrator (paras 8, 20).
• Respondent-Appellant (Dana H.): Contended similarly to Carl C. regarding the adjudication of abuse without specific identification of the perpetrator (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in adjudicating the children as abused without determining which parent actually caused the injuries suffered by Infant Child.
• Whether Section 32A-4-2(B), as applied to Carl C., is unconstitutionally vague.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s adjudication of the children as abused by Mother and Father.
• The Court of Appeals held that the child abuse statute is not so vague as to violate Father’s substantive due process protections (para 24).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring): The court found that the statute allows for a child to be adjudicated as abused if the risk of harm is caused by a parent, guardian, or custodian's action or inaction, without needing to specify which parent was the abuser. The court interpreted the statute's language and legislative intent to support this finding. The court also addressed the policy considerations underlying the child abuse statute, emphasizing the paramount concern for the child's health and safety. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court found no vagueness in the statute as applied to Father, citing a presumption of constitutionality and the ability to determine legislative intent through established rules of statutory interpretation (paras 8-23).