IN THE MATTER OF J.J.P.
2018 OK CIV APP 5
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- Mother (Erika Pruiett) appealed termination of parental rights to two young children (J.J.P. b.2011; J.L.P. b.2012) after a multi-day jury trial; appellate court affirmed.
- Children were originally removed in Dec. 2012 after severe injuries to infant J.L.P.; they were adjudicated deprived in 2014 on grounds including lack of care, physical abuse, and mother's mental health.
- Mother entered an ISP, made progress, and was placed on trial reunification in June 2016; during reunification a mid‑July incident left a scratch on J.L.P.’s face.
- Child disclosed to a physical therapist and later to a pediatric child‑abuse specialist (Dr. Brown) that Mother hit him with a cell phone; Dr. Brown also noted bruising consistent with excessive spanking. Forensic interviews later produced consistent disclosures by both children mentioning a brown belt and using similar profane language.
- DHS changed goal from reunification to termination; State sought termination under 10A O.S. Supp. 2015 § 1‑4‑904(B)(5) (failure to correct conditions) and (B)(10) (subsequent abuse). Jury found statutory grounds satisfied and terminated Mother’s rights.
- On appeal Mother argued the evidence (primarily the children’s statements) was insufficiently reliable and the State failed to prove failure to correct her mental‑health condition; the court reviewed under the clear‑and‑convincing standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved failure to correct lack of proper parental care and guardianship (§ 1‑4‑904(B)(5)) | Children’s consistent disclosures plus corroboration (Dr. Brown, DHS workers, therapist, GAL) and evidence of ongoing risk show failure to correct conditions | Mother denied physical abuse, asserted disclosures alone were unreliable and presented evidence of ISP compliance | Held: Yes — clear and convincing evidence supported termination for failure to correct care/guardianship |
| Whether State proved physical abuse (§ 1‑4‑904(B)(5)) | Medical/therapeutic observations and children’s consistent reports corroborate abuse allegations | Mother attributed injuries to a fall and denied disciplining; denied knowledge of grandfather’s alleged spanking | Held: Yes — evidence (medical specialist, forensic interviews, therapist) sufficiently corroborated abuse allegations |
| Whether State proved subsequent abuse (§ 1‑4‑904(B)(10)) | Forensic interview disclosures and continuing reports to professionals showed subsequent abuse after reunification began | Mother disputed veracity and offered alternative explanation for injuries | Held: Yes — subsequent abuse proven by corroborated disclosures and observations |
| Whether State proved failure to correct mother’s mental‑health condition (§ 1‑4‑904(B)(5)) | State asserted mother’s mental health was a continuing concern supporting termination | Mother and her therapist testified she consistently attended therapy; medication issues were minor and not shown to be noncompliant | Held: No — State failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a diagnosable untreated condition or noncompliance with treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B.C., 64 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2002) (appellate review in parental termination requires searching for clear‑and‑convincing proof)
- In the Matter of the Adoption of L.D.S., 155 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2006) (definition and application of clear‑and‑convincing standard)
- In re C.G., 637 P.2d 66 (Okla. 1981) (clear and convincing proof standard in parental termination)
- Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978) (procedural safeguards required when terminating parental rights)
- Drouillard v. Jensen Const. Co. of Okla., 601 P.2d 92 (Okla. 1979) (general rule on preserving sufficiency challenges at trial; court distinguished here due to parental‑rights context)
- In the Matter of A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental; full procedural protections necessary)