IN THE MATTER OF: M.R., 548 P.3d 120

Victoria Rodriguez (Mother) and Everardo Rodriguez, Sr. (Father) appealed the termination of their parental rights to four children, based on findings of heinous and shocking sexual abuse by Father and Mother’s failure to protect.
The children were removed from the home after the eldest daughter, M.R., disclosed sexual abuse by Father, and Mother was found to be unprotective and disbelieving of M.R.’s allegations.
After attempts to place the children with family or a safety monitor failed, the state court ordered the children into foster care pending investigation.
The trial court terminated each parent’s rights following a jury trial, finding clear and convincing evidence for both the abuse and failure to protect.
Mother argued that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) should provide heightened protections for all families, not just Native Americans, and challenged the equal protection implications.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, addressing both procedural and constitutional arguments, and clarifying the inapplicability of ICWA in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of ICWA burden of proof	Mother: All families should get the same heightened protection as provided by ICWA for Indian children	State: ICWA does not apply because the children are not Indian; even if it did, the heightened burden only applies to specific findings	Mother lacks standing; ICWA inapplicable; no equal protection violation
Sufficiency of evidence for termination	Mother: No clear & convincing evidence of heinous abuse or failure to protect; not in children's best interests to terminate	State: Provided extensive, detailed evidence of chronic abuse and lack of protection	Sufficient clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed
Adequacy of findings and procedural compliance by trial court	Father: Trial court failed to timely make required findings on reasonable efforts to prevent removal/reunification	State: Required findings were made; procedural requirements met within statutory/federal guidelines	No procedural or fundamental error; findings were adequate
Exclusion of evidence about absence of criminal charges	Father: Should have been allowed to show that no criminal charges were filed, as police testified	State: Criminal charges irrelevant and potentially prejudicial under evidence rules	Exclusion upheld; not relevant or admissible for juvenile termination case

In the Matter of C.G., 637 P.2d 66 (Okla. 1981) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination of parental rights)
In the Matter of the Adoption of L.D.S., 155 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2006) (clarifies clear and convincing evidence and balancing interests)
Farris v. Masquelier, 524 P.3d 942 (Okla. 2022) (review of fundamental error on appeal)
State ex rel. Tharel v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Creek County, 107 P.2d 542 (Okla. 1940) (effect of an unconstitutional statute)
In the Matter of K.H., 507 P.3d 647 (Okla. 2021) (relevance of criminal charges to termination of parental rights proceedings)