IN RE ADOPTION OF K.P.M.A.
2014 OK 85
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Child born out of wedlock June 21, 2012; prospective adoptive parents (Andrews) had custody from hospital release; mother voluntarily relinquished rights.
- Andrews filed for termination of parental rights (June 27, 2012) and adoption (Aug 14, 2012); mother named Billy McCall as putative father and Facebook message from mother to McCall allegedly notified him of pregnancy.
- McCall responded claiming paternity, that he first learned of the child when served in related guardianship proceedings, had visited the child after birth, and paid $250/month in support to the prospective adoptive parents.
- At the termination hearing the trial court excluded McCall testimony about his efforts to participate in guardianship proceedings, sustained a directed verdict for termination, and entered an order terminating his rights.
- Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed — holding (1) Facebook-only notice was insufficient under due process, and (2) the record lacked clear-and-convincing evidence to support termination because the trial court prematurely cut off McCall’s proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrews) | Defendant's Argument (McCall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCall's due process right to notice of the child existed and was violated | Andrews: burden on putative father to discover possible pregnancy; Facebook message constituted notice | McCall: he did not see the Facebook message until after birth and thus lacked notice to exercise parental rights | Held: McCall had a constitutionally protected "opportunity interest" and Facebook-only notice was not reasonably certain to inform him; due process violated |
| Whether notice via Facebook satisfied constitutional requirements | Andrews: Facebook message put McCall on notice | McCall: message was not effectively delivered; he did not receive actual notice pre-birth | Held: Facebook alone is an unreliable method and does not satisfy Mullane standard for due process notice in these facts |
| Whether trial court properly directed verdict and terminated rights on §7505-4.2(C) grounds | Andrews: McCall failed to exercise parental rights/duties (e.g., support) so consent not required | McCall: he was denied opportunity to prove efforts after learning of the child because testimony was excluded and hearing cut short | Held: Directed verdict was premature; record lacked clear and convincing evidence that termination was in child’s best interest or that statutory grounds were met |
| Whether counsel was ineffective during termination proceedings | Andrews: counsel’s performance did not prejudice outcome; McCall’s testimony showed failures | McCall: counsel’s performance raised issues (preserved for appeal) | Held: Court did not reach ineffective-assistance claim due to remand and insufficient record |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (explains unwed father’s constitutional "opportunity" interest to develop parent-child relationship)
- In re Termination of the Parental Rights of the Biological Parents of Baby Boy W., 988 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1999) (Oklahoma: mother/agency duty to notify putative father; lack of notice defeats termination)
- Steltzlen v. Fritz, 134 P.3d 141 (Okla. 2006) (reaffirmed Baby Boy W.; distinguished cases where father had notice and failed to act)
- In re Adoption of Baby Boy K.B., 264 P.3d 1258 (Okla. 2011) (reiterates importance of notice so father can seize opportunity interest)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (constitutional standard: notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2003) (summarizes due process notice standard under Oklahoma law)
- In re C.D.P.F., 243 P.3d 21 (Okla. 2010) (standard for appellate review of clear-and-convincing evidence in termination cases)