In the Matter of State Ex Rel. Aw
2011 OK CIV APP 27
Okla. Civ. App.2011Background
- Mother Shannon Wilson appeals a district court termination of parental rights to her two children, A.W. and M.W.
- Children were taken into state custody in August 2006 after allegations mother left A.W. unattended in a casino parking lot for 20–25 minutes while she sought cigarettes and milk.
- The petition alleged neglect, poor supervision, and harmful domestic conditions including fights, alcohol, and drugs around the children; father Kevin Wilson was incarcerated and the paternal aunt/relative cohort lifestyle raised concerns.
- The children were adjudicated deprived in November 2006; a treatment plan was set in January 2007 with reunification as the initial goal, including visitation and required services.
- By April 2008, the State recommended that reunification not be the goal and suspended visitations for A.W.; both children expressed desire not to return to the mother’s custody through therapists and caseworkers.
- In May 2008, a joint motion to terminate was filed based on failure to correct deprived conditions and other grounds; a jury tried the case May–July 2009, and found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination for failure to correct deprived conditions | Wilson contends she corrected conditions and thus termination was improper. | State asserts failure to correct deprived conditions despite treatment and time provided warrants termination and best interests require termination. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports failure to correct and best interests justify termination. |
| Whether due process notice of corrective conditions was provided | Wilson argues she was not adequately informed of exact conditions to avoid termination. | State asserts Wilson had notice via petitions and treatment plans and opportunity to defend at trial. | Yes; Wilson had notice and opportunity, and due process not violated. |
| Whether evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder affected due process and termination | State witness suggested a personality disorder, possibly affecting parenting, and Wilson argues this should have been noticed beforehand. | State did not rely on such disorder as a basis for termination and the issue was not preserved as a ground for termination. | Unpersuasive; not a basis for termination and Wilson failed to preserve the issue. |
| Whether compliance with treatment plans equates to correcting the deprived conditions | Wilson asserts substantial compliance demonstrates corrected conditions. | Compliance with treatment plan alone does not prove conditions were corrected. | Correct; conditions must be corrected, not merely complied with the plan. |
| Whether the State bore the burden of proof appropriately on termination | Wilson argues burden improperly shifted to parent after deprived adjudication. | State maintains it bears the clear and convincing burden to prove statutory grounds and best interests. | Yes; State bears the burden; jury verdict supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83 (OK Supreme Court, 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard applies in termination; paramount concern is child's welfare)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (highly protective standards for parental rights termination)
- In re C.G., 637 P.2d 66 (OK Supreme Court, 1982) (due process requires notice of normative conduct required to avoid deprivation)
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (OK Supreme Court, 2000) (procedural due process in termination proceedings; meaningful opportunity to defend)
- In re J.M., 858 P.2d 118 (OK CIV. APP., 1993) (burden on state to prove grounds for termination)
- In re K.C., 46 P.3d 1289 (OK CIV. APP., 2002) (standard that conditions leading to deprived adjudication must be corrected; best interests)