BABY F. v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
2015 OK 24
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Baby F., an infant in Oklahoma DHS emergency custody, had severe congenital and respiratory conditions and was a ward of the court after parents stipulated to deprivation.
- Treating physicians recommended changing his resuscitation status from "full code" to "Allow Natural Death" (DNR) due to a grim prognosis and suffering.
- The State sought court authorization under 10A O.S. 2011 § 1-3-102(C)(2); the trial court granted the DNR over Baby F.'s objection but stayed the order to allow this original action.
- While this Court's original action was pending, Baby F. was returned to parental custody and subsequently died. The State moved to dismiss the case as moot.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, denied mootness dismissal under recognized exceptions, and considered whether § 1-3-102(C)(2) satisfied substantive due process.
- The Court held that before authorizing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment or denial of CPR for a child in DHS custody, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the action is in the child's best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenge after Baby F.'s death | The controversy remains justiciable under exceptions: broad public interest and capable of repetition yet evading review | State: Baby F.'s death moots the case | Court: Not moot — both exceptions apply; review appropriate |
| Standard of proof required to authorize DNR under § 1-3-102(C)(2) | Statute lacks express burden; due process requires clear and convincing evidence when life is at stake | Statute's notice/hearing language is sufficient; no explicit proof standard needed | Court: Clear and convincing evidence is required |
| Substance of required findings (what must be proved) | Court must identify specific criteria; best interest of the child should be the focus | State pointed to physician recommendations and medical judgment as guiding criteria | Court: The paramount inquiry is the child's best interest; court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DNR/withdrawal is in child's best interest |
| Availability of writ of prohibition / original jurisdiction | Relief is necessary because harm would be irreparable and appeal inadequate | State argued case moot and disputed need for extraordinary relief | Court: Original jurisdiction assumed; writ of prohibition issued directing future compliance with due process requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1990) (endorses clear-and-convincing standard in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment context)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard required when interests are substantial and decision is effectively irreversible)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (discusses role of evidentiary standards as part of due process analysis)
- C.G., Matter of, 637 P.2d 66 (Okla. 1981) (Oklahoma application of clear-and-convincing standard to termination-type parental interests)
- In re Baby Girl L., 51 P.3d 544 (Okla. 2002) (parens patriae obligations and due process limits on state actions affecting parent-child relationship)
- James v. Rogers, 734 P.2d 1298 (Okla. 1987) (grounds for this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue writs of prohibition)