IN THE MATTER OF C.M., 432 P.3d 763

Mother (Norma Martinez-Mendoza) stipulated to children being deprived after an August 2013 incident in which she was intoxicated and allegedly choked one child; DHS removed three children and entered an ISP requiring Mother to correct neglect/abuse/substance issues.
DHS provided services (counseling for Mother and children, caseworker fluent in Mother's language) and changed permanency to adoption after finding reasonable efforts had failed; children were in foster care for years (removed Aug 27, 2013; in care continuously thereafter).
Children consistently expressed fear of Mother, disclosed prior abuse, and refused therapeutic visitation despite Mother's letters, photos, gifts, videos, and requests for phone contact.
The State filed for termination under multiple statutory grounds, and at trial the jury found termination appropriate under 10A O.S. §1-4-904(B)(15) (child in foster care 15 of last 22 months).
Mother appealed, raising three issues: DHS failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts (especially visitation), insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence that termination served children’s best interests, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunite	DHS curtailed visitation and failed to facilitate contact (e.g., phone with interpreter), making reunification impossible	DHS provided services, therapy, Spanish‑speaking caseworker, and visitation was withheld because contact would traumatize children who consistently refused	DHS made reasonable efforts; visitation was not in children’s best interest given consistent fear and therapist testimony
Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence	Termination not shown to be in children’s best interest; lack of visitation caused continued foster care	Children had been in care for required statutory period; longstanding disclosures of abuse, persistent fear, and Mother's denial supported best‑interest finding	Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §1‑4‑904(B)(15); termination in children’s best interest
Whether counsel was ineffective at trial	Trial counsel failed to object to hearsay, irrelevant prior‑abuse evidence, and improper opinion testimony, prejudicing outcome	Counsel was active, made objections, and any strategic omissions were reasonable; Mother failed to show deficient performance or prejudice	No ineffective assistance; Strickland standard not met

In re J.L.O., 428 P.3d 881 (Okla. 2018) (standards for termination and appellate review; clear‑and‑convincing proof requirement)
In re S.B.C., 64 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2002) (burden and review in termination cases)
In re B.T.W., 241 P.3d 199 (Okla. 2010) (reasonableness of DHS efforts and when visitation may be suspended)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re M.J. & J.J., 8 P.3d 936 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (legislative concern over prolonged foster care justifying termination)
In re Christopher H., 577 P.2d 1292 (Okla. 1978) (court will not terminate if state agent's actions contributed to separation)