In the Interest of M.A. v. J.A.

I dissent. Confining a twelve-year-old child in a dog cage may or may not be neglect. The State has admitted, and the majority opinion reflects, the only question presented is whether the caging was neglect per se. The caging was unusual punishment, but under the facts of this case it was not neglect per se because the child was not harmed, physically or mentally.

*97The cases relied upon by the majority do not sustain the result reached. In Interest of S.B., 712 S.W.2d 18, this court reversed the judgment because there was insubstantial evidence the mother left her child in the care of a cousin…