2015 OK 36
Okla.2015Background
- Mother Kelly D. Jones stipulated that her child T.T.S. was deprived after allegations of substance abuse, unsafe supervision, and an unsafe vehicle; the child remained in foster care.
- DHS prepared an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) listing numerous conditions and tasks mother should complete for reunification (drug treatment, safe/stable home, medical care, protection from domestic violence, etc.).
- The State filed an application to terminate parental rights under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5) alleging mother "failed to correct the conditions" but did not specify which conditions.
- Mother was incarcerated in Texas and was unable to secure transportation; the trial proceeded in absentia after the court concluded transporting her was impracticable.
- Jury instructions, verdict form, and the final termination order did not identify with particularity the specific conditions the State alleged mother failed to correct; the jury found termination appropriate on the § 1-4-904(B)(5) ground.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding due process requires specific conditions be identified in the application, jury instructions, verdict form, and final order in § 1-4-904(B)(5) cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires the State's termination application to specify the particular conditions alleged uncorrected under § 1-4-904(B)(5) | Specificity not required beyond alleging failure to correct conditions; OUJI-based instructions suffice | Due process requires particularized notice of which conditions remain uncorrected so parent can defend | Held: Due process requires the application to specify the particular uncorrected conditions (prospective rule) |
| Whether jury instructions and verdict form must enumerate the specific uncorrected conditions | OUJI instructions are adequate; no requirement to list each condition | Instructions/verdict must identify particular conditions to avoid vague, unconstitutional notice | Held: Jury instructions and verdict forms must identify with particularity the conditions alleged uncorrected; omission was fundamental error |
| Whether final termination order must state the specific uncorrected conditions | General finding that parent failed to correct conditions is sufficient | Final order must identify the precise uncorrected conditions to allow review and protect due process | Held: Final order must set forth the specific conditions the parent failed to correct |
| Whether proceeding without mother's physical presence (incarcerated) violated due process | Proceeding in absentia was permissible when transport impracticable and court warned jury not to consider incarceration | Mother argued lack of presence and inability to participate (transportation cost, lack of notice) deprived her of rights | Held: Court did not decide this issue as dispositive; remand instructions note courts should facilitate participation (telephonic/videoconference) and follow notice statutes on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental liberty interest; heightened procedural protections required)
- Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 154 P.3d 1240 (Okla. 2006) (incorrect jury instructions can be fundamental error)
- B-Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp., 114 P.3d 1082 (Okla. 2005) (OUJIs must accurately state applicable law)
- Thomas v. Gilliam, 774 P.2d 462 (Okla. 1989) (trial court must deviate from standard instructions if they misstate the law)
- In the Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978) (heightened procedural safeguards required in child-deprivation cases)
- In the Matter of A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (de novo review applies to procedural issues in termination cases)