IN THE MATTER OF T.T.S., 2015 OK 36

Background

Mother (Kelly D. Jones) stipulated that her child T.T.S. was "deprived" after facts involving parental drug use and the child being left unsupervised in a damaged vehicle; DHS created an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) listing multiple conditions for reunification (drug treatment, safe/stable home, domestic violence counseling, medical care, etc.).
DHS filed an application to terminate under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5) alleging the parent "failed to correct the conditions" but did not specify which conditions in the pleading.
Over prolonged proceedings mother was incarcerated in Texas and unable to appear at trial; the trial proceeded in her absence after the court found further delay not in the child’s best interest.
At jury trial the ISP was admitted, but jury instructions (OUJI-based) and the verdict form asked only whether mother failed to correct the conditions without enumerating which specific conditions remained uncorrected.
The jury found for termination on the ground of failure to correct conditions; the trial court’s final order also failed to identify the particular uncorrected conditions.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that due process requires specificity of the uncorrected conditions in the State’s application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and the final termination order for cases under § 1-4-904(B)(5).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires identification of the specific conditions a parent failed to correct in the State's application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order under § 1-4-904(B)(5)	State argued OUJI instructions were sufficient and no requirement exists to list each uncorrected condition	Mother argued lack of specificity deprived her of notice and ability to defend; required particulars were absent from pleading, instructions, verdict form, and order	Held: Due process requires the particular uncorrected conditions be specified in the application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order; omission was fundamental error and warranted reversal and remand for new trial
Whether the OUJI-form instructions (Instructions 11 & 12) were adequate without listing specific conditions	State: instructions accurately tracked OUJI and law	Mother: generic instruction deprived her of notice of the exact allegations she had to contest	Held: Generic OUJI instructions were insufficient here; court must provide instructions and verdict forms identifying the specific conditions alleged uncorrected
Whether the final termination order must list the uncorrected conditions	State: order need not recite each condition if record/ISP exists	Mother: termination must be based on failure to correct specific conditions and order must state them for appellate review	Held: Final order must identify with particularity the conditions the parent failed to correct to allow review and satisfy due process
Whether proceeding over mother's absence (incarcerated) violated due process	State: court made efforts to secure attendance and found trial in child’s best interest; incarceration not evidence of unfitness	Mother: inability to attend impaired defense and process	Held: Court did not decide all due-process claims because reversal was based on instructional/order defects; on remand court advised to accommodate incarcerated parent (transport, telephonic/videoconference) per prior authorities

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest requiring heightened procedural protections in termination proceedings)
Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 154 P.3d 1240 (Okla. 2006) (fundamental error arises from incorrect jury instructions)
B-Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp., 114 P.3d 1082 (Okla. 2005) (instructions must correctly reflect applicable law; court must deviate from OUJI when inaccurate)
In the Matter of A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (procedural standards and de novo review for termination procedure issues)
In the Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978) (vigilant enforcement of procedural safeguards in child deprivation cases)
Hemphill v. Harbuck, 326 P.3d 521 (Okla. 2014) (accommodation of incarcerated parents for participation in proceedings)