In Re State Ex Rel. A.W., 250 P.3d 343

In August 2006 the State took custody of M.W. and A.W. and filed a deprived adjudication petition against Mother based on neglect and unsafe conditions.
Mother stipulated to the petition; the children were adjudicated deprived in November 2006 and placed in foster care.
A January 2007 treatment plan outlined conditions to be corrected, including supervision, safe housing, parenting skills, medical care, and a support system, with weekly visitation.
From 2007 to April 2008 the State pursued reunification; in April 2008 the State began recommending that reunification not be the goal due to limited progress and the children's stated desires.
In May 2008 a joint motion to terminate parental rights was filed, alleging failure to correct the deprived conditions and other statutory grounds.
A jury trial from May to July 2009 found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother's rights based on (1) failure to correct the deprived condition, (2) failure to substantially contribute to support, and (3) the best interests of the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient clear and convincing evidence to terminate?	Mother failed to correct the deprived conditions.	Mother complied with treatment plans; conditions were corrected.	Yes; evidence showed conditions not corrected and best interests favored termination.
Were Mother's due process rights violated by lack of notice of conditions to be corrected?	Mother received notice via petitions and treatment plans; ample opportunity to defend.	State provided extensive notice and opportunities; no procedural deficiency.	No; Mother had notice and meaningful opportunity to defend.
Did the court rely on an alleged personality disorder as a termination basis?	Evidence of narcissistic personality disorder supported termination.	Disorder was not alleged in termination petition and was not relied on for termination.	No; not a basis for termination; not preserved as an issue.

In re S.B.C., 64 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2002) (burden on State in termination; clear and convincing standard applies)
In re C.G., 637 P.2d 66 (Okla. 1981) (due process requires notice of conduct norms to recapture status)
In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 487 (Okla. 2000) (applies Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test in termination)
In re K.C., 46 P.3d 1289 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (conditions leading to deprived adjudication; best interests standard)
In re J.M., 858 P.2d 118 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993) (burden on State to prove termination grounds; role of credibility)
In re J.C. and J.C., 168 P.3d 784 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (fundamental liberty interest balanced against child welfare)