IN THE MATTER OF L.M.A., 466 P.3d 559

Background

Three children (approx. 3, 2, and 10 months) were taken into DHS custody in Sept. 2016 amid allegations of an unfit home: lack of food, poor hygiene, missing immunization records, developmental delays, and inappropriate caregivers reportedly used by father.
Mother was jailed briefly then voluntarily terminated her parental rights in May 2018; father was arrested Jan. 2017 and remained incarcerated through trial (with a subsequent domestic-assault conviction and an earlier rape conviction on his record).
DHS provided therapy and services to the children in custody; the oldest received ongoing speech therapy and began kindergarten with continuing needs.
The State amended its petition (Aug. 2018) to seek termination of father’s rights on grounds including his prior rape conviction and his incarceration under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(8)(b) and (B)(12).
A jury adjudicated the children deprived as to father and found two statutory grounds for termination (incarceration causing harm and father’s rape conviction); the trial court terminated father’s parental rights and made the children wards of the court.
Father appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence to adjudicate deprivation and to terminate (incarceration-related harm and likelihood of neglect/abuse), and that prejudicial evidence of his criminal history was improperly admitted. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Alfred's Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency to adjudicate children deprived	Evidence (inappropriate caregivers, lack of supervision, poor hygiene, missing medical/immunization care, developmental delays, domestic violence) met preponderance standard for deprivation	Father disputes DHS factual claims (denies statements, says he provided care, disputes caregivers' characterization)	Affirmed: competent evidence supports finding children deprived due to unfit home, inadequate supervision/medical care, and domestic violence risk
2. Termination based on incarceration (§ 1-4-904(B)(12)) — would continuation of rights cause harm?	Jury could rely on duration of incarceration, criminal history, disrupted parent–child relationship, ages of children, and prior failures to comply with probation/services to find continuation would result in harm	Father argued incarceration alone is insufficient and State failed to show incarceration would harm children	Affirmed: evidence supported finding incarceration would result in harm under statutory factors
3. Likelihood of neglect/abuse in father’s custody	Prior conduct (leaving children with unsuitable caregivers, missed/unclear medical/immunization care, domestic-assault conviction, unstable housing and probation noncompliance) showed risk of future neglect/abuse	Father contended allegations were false or exaggerated, pointed to plans for post-release care and asserted convictions don’t prove inability to parent	Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination on statutory grounds (including rape conviction) and risk of neglect/abuse
4. Admissibility / prejudice of criminal-history evidence	State relied on convictions listed in petition (rape, prior Alaska conviction) and court allowed related exhibits; court excluded other convictions except for impeachment	Father argued exhibits and questioning introduced prejudicial extra-criminal history beyond petition and that exhibits went beyond mere conviction notice	Affirmed: trial court limited admitted criminal history to convictions alleged in petition (other convictions limited to impeachment); father’s testimony opened some issues and introduced exhibits tied to convictions listed in petition

Key Cases Cited

In re J.D.H., 130 P.3d 245 (2006 OK 5) (competent-evidence standard for deprivation adjudication)
In re S.B.C., 64 P.3d 1080 (2002 OK 83) (State must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
Matter of B.K., 398 P.3d 323 (2017 OK 58) (appellate review standard for termination: factfinder must be able to form a firm belief or conviction)
In re A.L.F., 237 P.3d 217 (2010 OK 59) (parental acts/omissions may cause or contribute to deprived status)
Matter of Daniel, 591 P.2d 1175 (1979 OK 33) (State must intervene when parental decisions create legally cognizable risk of harm)
In re Moore, 558 P.2d 371 (1976 OK 191) (risk-of-harm factors include supervision, cleanliness, nourishment, and medical attention)
Matter of Christina T., 590 P.2d 189 (1979 OK 9) (incarcerated parents sometimes can arrange suitable care via extended family; fact-specific inquiry)
In re K.M., 164 A.3d 945 (D.C. 2017) (failure to obtain immunizations can constitute medical neglect)
New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 11 A.3d 844 (N.J. 2011) (impecuniousness alone should not justify removal; court may consider family’s ability to arrange care during incarceration)