IN THE MATTER OF T.T.S.
2015 OK 36
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Mother (Kelly D. Jones) stipulated that her child T.T.S. was deprived after events including parental drug use and the child being left unsupervised in a damaged vehicle; DHS prepared an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) listing multiple corrective conditions.
- DHS and the State later filed to terminate mother's parental rights under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5) — failure to correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication.
- The State's applications did not specify which particular ISP conditions mother allegedly failed to correct; the ISP itself contained a broad, mixed list of mandatory and desired tasks.
- Mother was incarcerated in Texas and was not present at the jury trial despite counsel's objections; the trial proceeded in absentia.
- Jury instructions and verdict forms tracked OUJI language on "failure to correct" but did not identify with particularity the specific conditions alleged to remain uncorrected; the jury found for termination and the court entered a final order that likewise omitted the specific conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires the State's termination petition to specify the particular conditions alleged uncorrected under § 1-4-904(B)(5) | No express particularity required beyond alleging failure to correct conditions and relying on ISP and evidence | Due process requires specific written allegations of the exact conditions alleged to remain uncorrected so parent can defend | The State must specify the particular uncorrected conditions in its application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order |
| Whether jury instructions/OUJI language sufficed without listing specific uncorrected conditions | OUJI instructions are adequate and were correctly given | Generic OUJI instructions insufficient; jurors and parent need particularity to satisfy Due Process | Instructions that fail to identify the specific uncorrected conditions constitute fundamental error in § 1-4-904(B)(5) cases |
| Whether verdict forms may omit listing of specific conditions | Verdict forms need not enumerate conditions if instruction and evidence permit finding | Verdict forms must identify the precise conditions found uncorrected to allow meaningful review and defense | Verdict forms must identify with particularity the uncorrected conditions supporting termination |
| Whether final termination order must list the particular conditions not corrected | Final order need only reflect the statutory ground proven | Final order must state the specific conditions that were not corrected to permit appellate review and satisfy due process | Final order must identify the precise conditions the parent failed to correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest requiring heightened procedural protections)
- Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 154 P.3d 1240 (Okla. 2006) (incorrect jury instructions constitute fundamental error)
- B-Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp., 114 P.3d 1082 (Okla. 2005) (OUJI must correctly reflect applicable law; trial judge must modify erroneous uniform instructions)
- Thomas v. Gilliam, 774 P.2d 462 (Okla. 1989) (trial court duty to deviate from OUJI when instruction is incorrect)
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (de novo review applies to procedure in termination proceedings)
- In the Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978) (vigilant enforcement of procedural safeguards in child deprivation cases)
(Disposition: Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the termination judgment and remanded for new trial; opinion announces prospective rule that in § 1-4-904(B)(5) proceedings the State's petition, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order must specify the particular conditions the parent failed to correct.)