State v. Gravelle - Pound Pup Legacy

isk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, orsupport."{ 61} Dr. Benninger testified that he performed a psychological evaluation ofS.E. In 2005, Benninger diagnosed her with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder andoppositional defiant disorder. S.E. told Benninger that when she lived with appellants,she disliked the big square wooden beds "with wires" on them. She also told Dr.Benninger that appellant Michael had once pushed her face in the toilet and flushed it aspunishment. When asked by the prosecutor for his "opinion to a reasonable degree ofscientific or psychological certainty" whether being forced to sleep in a caged bed forapproximately three years and being subjected to sporadic punishments would "seriouslyimpair or retard [S.E.'s] mental health or development," Dr. Benninger replied: "it couldseriously impair her emotional development."{ 62} While Dr. Benninger's use of the word "could" somewhat weakens hisopinion when compared to his definitive opinion that appellants' conduct "would"seriously impair or retard the mental health of M.L, we note that the statute merely callsfor a showing of a substantial risk to the health of the child. We find that Benninger'stestimony was sufficient to show that there was substantial risk that appellants' actionscould impair S.E's health.{ 63} Finally, appellants contend that the evidence was insufficient to convictthem of felony child endangering and misdemeanor child endangering with regards toJ.O, referenced in Counts 20 and 1.18.