TAPPE, Circuit Judge.
[¶ 1.] The trial court reversed Stanley County School District’s decision to terminate Hughes’ employment holding that School District abused its discretion. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
FACTS AND PRIOR DECISION
[¶ 2.] This case is before this Court for the second time. For a detailed statement of the facts and procedure relevant to the first appeal see Hughes v. Stanley County School Bd., 1999 SD 65, 594 N.W.2d 346 (Hughes I). A factual summary is provided here to facilitate discussion in this appeal.
[¶ 3.] Mary Hughes (Hughes) was employed as an elementary school guidance counselor for the Stanley County School District (School Board) between 1990 and 1997. In the fall of 1994 and in the spring of 1995, M.B., a third grade student, approached Hughes on four separate occasions, telling Hughes on one occasion that her father walked around the house after his showers without a towel. Hughes was later told by M.B. that her father had touched her in the area of her (undeveloped) breasts during a playful wrestling match. In a third conversation, M.B. said she had walked in on her father while he was masturbating. In the last conversation, M.B. reported that her father had asked her to touch his penis.
[¶ 4.] Hughes doubted M.B.’s claims because, in her experience counseling M.B., she had learned that M.B. had a tendency to fabricate or exaggerate the facts. Thus, on each occasion that M.B. reported her father’s conduct, Hughes gave the same advice: she told M.B. to [52]*52speak with her mother to ask her father to cover up and to get her father to be more discreet. After the last conversation with M.B., Hughes conferred with the high school counselor about M.B.’s claims and both agreed that she was fabricating the touching incident. Both also agreed that Hughes should speak with the parents to discuss the allegations their daughter had made. When Hughes spoke to the parents, they both admitted the first three allegations and stated that M.B.’s father had taken steps to remedy his behavior. However, both parents stated that the allegation that the father had asked M.B. to touch his penis was untrue. Hughes continued to monitor the situation by checking with M.B. on a daily basis. No further incidents were mentioned by M.B. and she told Hughes that her father was now wearing a robe.
[¶ 5.] During this entire period of time, both state law (SDCL 26-8A-3) and school district policy1 required teachers to report suspected child abuse. Furthermore, school district policy forbade teachers from contacting the parents to determine the cause of the suspected abuse.
[¶ 6.] In July 1996, as a result of investigation by the Stanley County Sheriffs Office of alleged sexual assault by M.B.’s father against a neighbor child, Hughes was questioned about the foregoing conversations with M.B. Hughes submitted a written report to her superiors regarding M.B.’s allegations. She explained that she did not believe M.B.’s allegations, but admitted that she did, in fact, contact M.B.’s parents concerning those allegations. M.B.’s father later entered a plea of guilty to sexually assaulting the neighbor child.
[¶ 7.] Hughes was criminally charged with failure to report child abuse or neglect under SDCL 26-8A-3. Her criminal case resulted in a mistrial and the charges against her were dismissed.
[¶ 8.] On September 27, 1996, Hughes was served with a notice of intent to terminate employment relationship. The notice, signed by the superintendent of schools, alleged that Hughes had “violated the written policy of Stanley County School District No. 57-1 as set forth at page 5 in [53]*53the teacher handbook given to [her] for the 1994-95 school year under the heading ‘Child Abuse/Neglect.’” The notice further alleged that she had “violated state law concerning the reporting of suspected child abuse, including but not limited to, SDCL 26-8A-3 and SDCL 26-8A-2(8) in the fall of 1994, which failure to report [had] been recently discovered by the administration and the State of South Dakota.”
[¶ 9.] Hughes was initially suspended with pay until a hearing could be held on the matter. By the time the criminal trial was held, however, the School Board had suspended Hughes without pay pending the administrative hearing.
[¶ 10.] On February 13, 1997, the School Board held a hearing on the notice to terminate. After the hearing, the School Board voted to issue its “Notice of Termination of Employment Relationship,” concluding Hughes had breached her contract of employment. She appealed that decision to the circuit court where the decision of the School Board was affirmed. The appeal in Hughes I followed.
DISCUSSION
[¶ 11.] In Hughes I we set forth the standards for determining appeals involving teachers and school boards:
A proceeding in circuit court on an appeal pursuant to SDCL 13-46-1 is a trial de novo. On appeal to the circuit court, the court may determine the legality of that decision. Strain v. Rapid City School Bd., 447 N.W.2d 332, 338 (S.D.1989). However, great deference is given to the good faith determinations of school boards on decisions of whether to renew a teacher’s contract. Jager v. Ramona Bd. of Educ., 444 N.W.2d 21, 25 (S.D.1989). The appeal to the circuit court is not a trial de novo in the true sense of the phrase, as it has the limited function of receiving evidence for the sole purpose of determining the legality, and not the propriety, of the school board’s decision. Riter v. Woonsocket School Dist. No. 55-1, 504 N.W.2d 572, 574 (S.D.1993). The determination of legality is a two-pronged process: (1) whether the School Board acted legally, and (2) whether the School Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Id. On appeal to this Court, we review facts under the clearly erroneous standard, however, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Aman v. Edmunds Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 N.W.2d 198, 199 (S.D.1992).
Hughes I, 1999 SD 65 at ¶ 15, 594 N.W.2d at 351.
Hughes I — Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse
[¶ 12.] In Hughes I, we reversed and remanded. In doing so, we held that the School Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously and abused its discretion in terminating Hughes as there was no evidence to support the district’s conclusion that Hughes’ failure to report child abuse was a violation of her contract. Central to the determination of Hughes I
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TAPPE, Circuit Judge.
[¶ 1.] The trial court reversed Stanley County School District’s decision to terminate Hughes’ employment holding that School District abused its discretion. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
FACTS AND PRIOR DECISION
[¶ 2.] This case is before this Court for the second time. For a detailed statement of the facts and procedure relevant to the first appeal see Hughes v. Stanley County School Bd., 1999 SD 65, 594 N.W.2d 346 (Hughes I). A factual summary is provided here to facilitate discussion in this appeal.
[¶ 3.] Mary Hughes (Hughes) was employed as an elementary school guidance counselor for the Stanley County School District (School Board) between 1990 and 1997. In the fall of 1994 and in the spring of 1995, M.B., a third grade student, approached Hughes on four separate occasions, telling Hughes on one occasion that her father walked around the house after his showers without a towel. Hughes was later told by M.B. that her father had touched her in the area of her (undeveloped) breasts during a playful wrestling match. In a third conversation, M.B. said she had walked in on her father while he was masturbating. In the last conversation, M.B. reported that her father had asked her to touch his penis.
[¶ 4.] Hughes doubted M.B.’s claims because, in her experience counseling M.B., she had learned that M.B. had a tendency to fabricate or exaggerate the facts. Thus, on each occasion that M.B. reported her father’s conduct, Hughes gave the same advice: she told M.B. to [52]*52speak with her mother to ask her father to cover up and to get her father to be more discreet. After the last conversation with M.B., Hughes conferred with the high school counselor about M.B.’s claims and both agreed that she was fabricating the touching incident. Both also agreed that Hughes should speak with the parents to discuss the allegations their daughter had made. When Hughes spoke to the parents, they both admitted the first three allegations and stated that M.B.’s father had taken steps to remedy his behavior. However, both parents stated that the allegation that the father had asked M.B. to touch his penis was untrue. Hughes continued to monitor the situation by checking with M.B. on a daily basis. No further incidents were mentioned by M.B. and she told Hughes that her father was now wearing a robe.
[¶ 5.] During this entire period of time, both state law (SDCL 26-8A-3) and school district policy1 required teachers to report suspected child abuse. Furthermore, school district policy forbade teachers from contacting the parents to determine the cause of the suspected abuse.
[¶ 6.] In July 1996, as a result of investigation by the Stanley County Sheriffs Office of alleged sexual assault by M.B.’s father against a neighbor child, Hughes was questioned about the foregoing conversations with M.B. Hughes submitted a written report to her superiors regarding M.B.’s allegations. She explained that she did not believe M.B.’s allegations, but admitted that she did, in fact, contact M.B.’s parents concerning those allegations. M.B.’s father later entered a plea of guilty to sexually assaulting the neighbor child.
[¶ 7.] Hughes was criminally charged with failure to report child abuse or neglect under SDCL 26-8A-3. Her criminal case resulted in a mistrial and the charges against her were dismissed.
[¶ 8.] On September 27, 1996, Hughes was served with a notice of intent to terminate employment relationship. The notice, signed by the superintendent of schools, alleged that Hughes had “violated the written policy of Stanley County School District No. 57-1 as set forth at page 5 in [53]*53the teacher handbook given to [her] for the 1994-95 school year under the heading ‘Child Abuse/Neglect.’” The notice further alleged that she had “violated state law concerning the reporting of suspected child abuse, including but not limited to, SDCL 26-8A-3 and SDCL 26-8A-2(8) in the fall of 1994, which failure to report [had] been recently discovered by the administration and the State of South Dakota.”
[¶ 9.] Hughes was initially suspended with pay until a hearing could be held on the matter. By the time the criminal trial was held, however, the School Board had suspended Hughes without pay pending the administrative hearing.
[¶ 10.] On February 13, 1997, the School Board held a hearing on the notice to terminate. After the hearing, the School Board voted to issue its “Notice of Termination of Employment Relationship,” concluding Hughes had breached her contract of employment. She appealed that decision to the circuit court where the decision of the School Board was affirmed. The appeal in Hughes I followed.
DISCUSSION
[¶ 11.] In Hughes I we set forth the standards for determining appeals involving teachers and school boards:
A proceeding in circuit court on an appeal pursuant to SDCL 13-46-1 is a trial de novo. On appeal to the circuit court, the court may determine the legality of that decision. Strain v. Rapid City School Bd., 447 N.W.2d 332, 338 (S.D.1989). However, great deference is given to the good faith determinations of school boards on decisions of whether to renew a teacher’s contract. Jager v. Ramona Bd. of Educ., 444 N.W.2d 21, 25 (S.D.1989). The appeal to the circuit court is not a trial de novo in the true sense of the phrase, as it has the limited function of receiving evidence for the sole purpose of determining the legality, and not the propriety, of the school board’s decision. Riter v. Woonsocket School Dist. No. 55-1, 504 N.W.2d 572, 574 (S.D.1993). The determination of legality is a two-pronged process: (1) whether the School Board acted legally, and (2) whether the School Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Id. On appeal to this Court, we review facts under the clearly erroneous standard, however, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Aman v. Edmunds Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 N.W.2d 198, 199 (S.D.1992).
Hughes I, 1999 SD 65 at ¶ 15, 594 N.W.2d at 351.
Hughes I — Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse
[¶ 12.] In Hughes I, we reversed and remanded. In doing so, we held that the School Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously and abused its discretion in terminating Hughes as there was no evidence to support the district’s conclusion that Hughes’ failure to report child abuse was a violation of her contract. Central to the determination of Hughes I was the fact that, in deciding that Hughes violated the terms of her contract, the Board had applied the objective standard of SDCL 26-8A-3 instead of the subjective standard of the school policy.2 We held that the Board did not have evidence to support the conclusion that Hughes suspected abuse and, therefore, violated school policy by not reporting it.
[54]*54Hughes I — Speaking to Child’s Parents
[¶ 13.] School policy also prohibited Hughes from contacting the child’s parents if she suspected abuse. The Board terminated Hughes’ employment for breach of contract, presumably for failing to report suspected child abuse (discussed above) and also for speaking with the child’s parents. This Court found that the Board had insufficient evidence with regard to Hughes’ failure to report. The question remained whether Hughes violated school policy by talking to M.B.’s parents. We remanded for the Board to determine whether it would have terminated her solely for that reason. Unstated in the opinion in Hughes I, but certainly implicit therein, was that the Board, on remand, was required to apply a subjective standard set forth in the school policy to determine whether Hughes suspected abuse and, therefore, violated school policy and her contract by contacting the child’s parents.
[¶ 14.] Both parties argue that the law of the case doctrine applies in this case and, of course, each argues that the doctrine favors their position. The doctrine provides that “a question decided on a former appeal [becomes] the law of the case, not to be questioned in a second or any subsequent appeal involving any branch of the case.” Western States Land v. Lexington Ins., 459 N.W.2d 429, 435 (S.D.1990) (quoting Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 260 (S.D.1976)). Both parties, however, misinterpret our holding in Hughes I.
[¶ 15.] School Board claims that Hughes I held that Hughes admitted talking to the parents and, therefore, no further findings need be made on that point. Hughes claims, on the other hand, that Hughes I held that, inasmuch as Hughes suspected no abuse, using either the objective or the subjective standard, there was no way she could have violated school policy. School Board is mistaken as to the holding in Hughes I. Although Hughes I did hold that Hughes admitted talking to the parents, that is not the same as saying that she admitted that she suspected child abuse. Hughes is also mistaken in her position because Hughes I only held that there was no evidence that she suspected child abuse; it did not hold that she did not suspect child abuse.
[¶ 16.] In reversing the Board, the trial court found3 that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and not a legal act. On remand, the Board, rather than hearing any additional testimony or making additional findings relating to Hughes’ subjective belief as to whether child abuse had occurred, simply stated, in effect, that it would have terminated simply for contacting the parents! The Board took no additional evidence of any type and certainly no evidence bearing upon the question of whether Hughes suspected abuse. The Board did not make any findings to support a conclusion that Hughes suspected abuse. The only testimony in the record bearing upon that question is Hughes’ own testimony as to her character, honesty and good record and that she did not suspect abuse. The record is void of any basis for making a determination that Hughes suspected child abuse. Therefore, the Board’s decision to terminate Hughes for contacting the parents, absent a finding in the record that [55]*55Hughes suspected child abuse, is not supported by the record and is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Contrary to the dissent’s assertion that we are: making a “twisted reinterpretation” of our reporting statutes; rendering child abuse reporting into an “almost meaningless muddle,” and “shield[ing]” school officials who “evade their duties,” this decision does not even attempt to interpret the reporting statutes. This decision concerns itself only with procedure in firing a teacher, and has nothing to do with interpreting the reporting statutes. Hughes’ actions in speaking to the parents about the little girls’ allegations are not excused here. At the very least, though, in firing a teacher for violating the reporting statutes (or school policy which forbids her from speaking to the parents), the Board is required to make findings to support its decision. This was not done here. The decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
[¶ 17.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS and AMUNDSON, Justices, concur.
[¶ 18.] KONENKAMP, Justice, dissents.
[¶ 19.] TAPPE, Circuit Judge, for MILLER, Retired Chief Justice who was a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted but was disqualified.