State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. Jones
373 P.3d 1022
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Child T.T.S. was adjudicated deprived in 2011 based on mother Kelly D. Jones's substance abuse and unsafe environment; child placed with foster parents.
- DHS created an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) listing numerous corrective conditions (drug treatment, stable housing, parenting, medical care, etc.), but the ISP’s requirements were broad and not precisely defined.
- Mother was incarcerated in Texas during much of the proceedings and was unable to secure transport to attend the Oklahoma termination trial; bench warrants and transport attempts were made but she did not appear at trial.
- The State filed to terminate mother’s parental rights under 10A O.S. § 1-4-904(B)(5) alleging failure to correct conditions that led to the deprived adjudication; the application did not specify which ISP conditions were uncorrected.
- At trial the jury received generic failure-to-correct instructions (OUJI-based) and verdict forms that did not list the particular conditions alleged to be uncorrected; jury found for termination and the court entered a final order without specifying the precise uncorrected conditions.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding due process requires particularity as to which conditions were alleged uncorrected in the application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order (prospective application only).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires particularity of which conditions were uncorrected in § 1-4-904(B)(5) termination actions | State: OUJI instructions suffice; no requirement to enumerate every condition in instructions | Mother: Due process required specific identification of uncorrected conditions in pleadings, instructions, verdict, and order | Held: Due process requires the State’s application, jury instructions, verdict forms, and final order to identify with particularity the conditions alleged uncorrected under § 1-4-904(B)(5) |
| Whether trial court’s generic failure-to-correct jury instructions were sufficient | State: Standard OUJI mirrored instructions adequately informed jury | Mother: Generic instructions deprived her of notice and ability to defend | Held: Instructions were fundamental error—insufficient specificity violated due process |
| Whether final judgment must list specific uncorrected conditions | State: Final order need not itemize conditions if ISP exists | Mother: Final order must identify the precise conditions to allow appellate review and fairness | Held: Final order must specify the exact conditions the parent failed to correct |
| Whether mother’s absence at trial and transport efforts violated due process | Mother: State failed to secure her presence and that harmed her defense | State: Made efforts to procure transport; trial in child’s best interest to proceed in absentia | Held: Court reversed on instructional/notice grounds and remanded; opinion directs courts to accommodate incarcerated parents (telephonic/videoconference) and follow notice rules on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest; heightened procedural protections required before terminating parental rights)
- In the Matter of A.M. and R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (de novo review and due process framework in child-deprivation proceedings)
- In the Matter of Chad S., 580 P.2d 983 (Okla. 1978) (need for vigilant procedural safeguards in deprivation cases)
- Hemphill v. Harbuck, 326 P.3d 521 (Okla. 2014) (procedural guidance for accommodating incarcerated parents and trial process)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 943 P.2d 599 (Okla. 1997) (standards for appellate review and procedural fairness)