Martinez-Mendoza v. State (In re C.M.), 432 P.3d 763

In August 2013 DHS removed three children (ages ~8½, 6¾, and 4¾) after an incident in which Mother, highly intoxicated, was arrested for choking the oldest child; DHS petitioned that the children were deprived due to neglect, physical abuse, exposure to substance use, and an unsafe home.
Mother stipulated to the deprivation adjudication in January 2014 and was placed on an individualized service plan (ISP) to correct identified conditions.
DHS changed permanency to adoption after finding reasonable efforts failed; by early 2015 the State moved to terminate parental rights and later amended to add the 15-of-22-months ground.
Over multi-year therapy, the children consistently expressed fear of Mother, disclosed prior abuse, refused therapeutic visitation, and showed trauma responses; DHS curtailed visitation because contact would likely traumatize them.
A jury found termination appropriate solely under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(15) (15 of 22 months in foster care); the district court entered a termination order; Mother appealed raising three issues.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunite	DHS failed to facilitate visitation (including phone with interpreter), so no real opportunity for reunification	DHS provided services, bilingual caseworker, extensive therapy, and suspended visitation because continued contact would traumatize the children	Affirmed: DHS made reasonable efforts; visitation properly limited by children’s safety and expressed wishes
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination (best interest / §1-4-904(B)(15))	Termination not shown to be in children’s best interest; Mother not solely responsible for prolonged foster care because lack of visitation impeded reunification	Children had been in foster care >15 of 22 months, consistently refused contact due to credible disclosures and trauma; Mother denied prior abuse despite earlier stipulation	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §1-4-904(B)(15)
Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to object to hearsay, irrelevant pre-adjudication abuse evidence, and speculative/opinion testimony	Counsel was active, made objections, and strategic choices were reasonable; Mother cannot show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland	Affirmed: counsel effective; Mother failed to prove deficiency and prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
In re B.T.W., 241 P.3d 199 (Okla. 2010) (upholding reasonable efforts finding where child’s fear and therapist recommendations justified limiting visitation)
In re J.L.O., 428 P.3d 881 (Okla. 2018) (standards for appellate review in termination proceedings and requirement of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Christopher H., 577 P.2d 1292 (Okla. 1978) (agency misconduct may preclude termination when the agent contributes to the circumstances preventing reunification)
In re M.J. & J.J., 8 P.3d 936 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (legislative view that prolonged foster custody without reunification supports termination)