BABY F. v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
2015 OK 24
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Baby F., a child in DHS custody, faced a DHS petition to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and accept a Do Not Resuscitate order under 10A O.S. 2011 § 1-3-102(C)(2).
- A trial court granted the DHS request to change Baby F.’s resuscitation status to DNR over the child’s objections.
- Petitioner Baby F. sought original jurisdiction and a writ of prohibition to invalidate the order.
- Before Baby F. died (January 10, 2015), the State moved to dismiss as moot; the Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction.
- The Court held that due process requires clear and convincing evidence that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is in the child’s best interests, and that mootness exceptions apply because the issue is of broad public interest and capable of repetition while evading review.
- The Court issued a writ of prohibition directing future courts to apply a clear-and-convincing standard and best-interests analysis for similar DNR determinations in DHS custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1-3-102(C)(2) comports with due process for DNR decisions in DHS custody | Baby F. argues the statute lacks substantive due process protections | DHS contends notice/hearing satisfies due process; standard at issue is implied | Clear and convincing standard required; best interest of the child must guide |
| What evidentiary standard applies to 1-3-102(C)(2) withdrawals | Cruzan precedent supports clear and convincing evidence | Statutory text is silent on standard | Clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally required |
| Whether best interests govern what must be proven under 1-3-102(C)(2) | Hydration/Nutrition Act guidance suggests criteria | Hydration Act not directly applicable; focus on child’s best interests | Best interest of the child is the paramount criterion, proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Role of mootness exceptions in original jurisdiction proceeding | Case involves broad public interest and repetition | Mootness should bar the proceeding after death | Case falls within public-interest and capable-of-repetition exceptions; reach decided now |
| Scope of relief and prospective guidance for lower courts | Need for uniform standard in DHS DNR determinations | Relief would be unnecessary if standards were statutory | Writ of prohibition issued; require clear-and-convincing best-interests findings in future cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1990) (clear and convincing standard appropriate for life-sustaining decisions)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (importance of stakes supports heightened proof)
- In re Baby Girl L., 2002 OK 9, 51 P.3d 544 (Okla. 2002) (substantive due process in parental rights; best interests)
- C.G., Matter of, 1981 OK 131, 637 P.2d 66 (Okla. 1981) (clear and convincing standard for parental termination)
- In the Matter of the Guardian of Doornbos, 2006 OK 94, 151 P.3d 126 (Okla. 2006) (application of best interests under Children’s Code)
- State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. Colclazier, 1997 OK 134, 950 P.2d 824 (Okla. 1997) (mootness and timing in DHS proceedings referenced)