Jeremiah v. State
286 P.3d 659
Okla. Civ. App.2012Background
- Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to four children after unanimous jury verdicts finding failure to correct the conditions leading to deprived adjudication under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5).
- Record shows a deprived adjudication filed in 2008; ISP and probationary services identified domestic violence/anger management as the core condition to be corrected.
- DHS substituted a STAT class in lieu of an ordered domestic violence class without explicit court approval or notice, and relied on evidence of noncompliance with the STAT class to terminate rights.
- There were deficiencies in notice, approval, and identification of the specific conditions in the adjudication and ISP; the jury instructions and termination order failed to specify the uncorrected conditions and the best-interest finding.
- The court reversed the termination order and remanded for proceedings, citing due process violations and DHS’s unilateral modification of the ISP without court authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice and due process for ISP changes | Jeremiah argues DHS’s substitution of the STAT class violated due process. | State contends substitutions were acceptable under ISP | Fundamental due process violation; reversal and remand. |
| Retroactivity and proper statute at termination | Mother asserts § 1-4-904(B)(5) should govern retroactively. | State argues § 7006-1.1(A)(5) governs; not retroactive. | § 7006-1.1(A)(5) governs; no fundamental error on retroactivity issue. |
| Jury instructions and identification of uncorrected conditions | Cannot terminate without clear identification of uncorrected conditions. | Instructions complied with applicable law. | Fundamental error—jury verdicts lack identified conditions; termination order defective. |
| Scope of “other conditions” evidence | Other home conditions cannot support termination if not identified in ISP. | State may rely on other conditions. | utilización of ‘other conditions’ without notice violated due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of A.M. & R.W., 2000 OK 82 (OK (2000)) (due process safeguards; notice and standards of conduct)
- Matter of C.G., 1981 OK 131 (OK (1981)) (pre-1981 norms of conduct; need for written judicially-prescribed norms)
- Matter of Baby Girl Williams, 1979 OK 150 (OK (1979)) (statutory notice of failure to comply with plan; termination safeguards)
- Matter of J.F.C., 1978 OK 56 (OK (1978)) (norms of conduct; notice and opportunity to rectify)
- Matter of J.M., 1993 OK CIV APP 121 (OK CIV APP 1993) (agency modification of ISP without court approval)
- In re S.A., 2007 OK CIV APP 97 (OK CIV APP 2007) (ISP requirements; notice and service provisions)
- In re L.M., 2012 OK CIV APP 41 (OK CIV APP 2012) (retroactivity and correct statute for termination; LM relied on similar issues)
- Matter of R.A., W.A., Z.A. and A.A., 2012 OK CIV APP 65 (OK CIV APP 2012) (juries’ failure to identify uncorrected conditions; fundamental error)