Khanpher v. State
2013 OK CIV APP 21
Okla. Civ. App.2013Background
- L.S. was born July 5, 2010, tested positive for amphetamines, and was placed in DHS custody; Father was incarcerated at birth.
- Mother’s rights were terminated; State sought termination of Father’s rights after deprivation adjudication.
- Disposition order required Father to meet six ISP standards to correct the conditions leading to deprivation.
- Jury trial in February 2012 resulted in termination of Father’s parental rights based on failure to correct the conditions and best interests.
- Father challenges the termination order as defective, argues lack of explicit statutory basis, and asserts due process, ISP validity, and evidentiary issues.
- Appellate court affirms, holding the termination order’s lack of listing uncorrected conditions is not fatal, and finds substantial evidence supports termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination order improperly lacks explicit statutory predicates | Khanpher argues the order fails to list statutory basis and uncorrected conditions. | State contends instructions mirrored ISP; no explicit listing required by statute. | No reversible error; explicit listing not required; instructions sufficed. |
| Whether ISP validity required a signature | Khanpher contends missing signature invalidates ISP and notice. | State notes Father appeared, testified, knew ISP terms; signature not required by statute. | ISP valid; lack of signature did not invalidate proceedings. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination | Khanpher asserts insufficient evidence to prove failure to correct conditions. | State argues Father’s partial compliance and noncompliance support termination. | Clear and convincing evidence supported termination. |
| Whether DHS provided adequate assistance to enable compliance | Khanpher claims DHS impeded efforts to obtain services in Texas/Oklahoma. | State contends Father failed to diligently pursue available assistance and pre-approval processes. | No reversible error; DHS did not obstruct, and Father did not prove prejudice. |
| Whether certain evidentiary rulings/prejudicial testimony violated due process | Khanpher cites improper evidence about visitation and other matters. | State argues evidence was permissible and any objections were waived or not fundamental error. | No reversible prejudice; evidentiary challenges failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of S.B.C., 64 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2002) (parental rights require clear and convincing evidence on appeal; de novo review of legal errors)
- In re L.S., 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990) (specific statutory predicatory findings required for termination decisions)
- In re B.M.O., 838 P.2d 38 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992) (absence of explicit listing of conditions not necessarily fatal if ISP referenced at trial)
- In re M.D.R., 50 P.3d 1160 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (adequacy of termination rulings under statutory framework reviewed; predicated findings matter)
- In the Matter of E.M., 976 P.2d 1098 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999) (insufficient predicate findings in termination order; statutory basis required)
- In the Matter of S.A., 169 P.3d 730 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007) (noncompliance with ISP considered as evidence supporting termination)
- In re State of Oklahoma In the Interest of K.P., 275 P.3d 161 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012) (noncompliance with ISP may support termination, though not alone)
- In re B.C., 242 P.3d 589 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (jury instructed on uncorrected conditions; termination supported by findings)