State v. Albert
2012 OK CIV APP 65
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2012Background
- Keisha Albert (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to R.A., W.A., Z.A., and A.A. after a unanimous jury verdict finding failure to correct the conditions leading to deprivation under 10A O.S. Supp. 2009 § 1-4-904(B)(5) and (14).
- Children were deprived due to lack of supervision, neglect, exposure to substance abuse, and unstable home environment; A.A. was later added as deprived.
- Mother entered The Oaks Rehab Center for inpatient treatment; she later left against medical advice, leading to A.A.’s protective custody.
- An ISP identified risk factors and actions to correct substance abuse, housing, finances, visitation, and attendance at hearings; a later ISP added a mental health component.
- Mother relapsed in October 2010; DHS filed separate petitions to terminate for R.A., W.A., Z.A., and A.A. based on failure to correct conditions; a drug court involved but Mother’s mental health issues were not adequately addressed in the ISPs.
- The trial court entered orders and a verdict form that failed to identify specific uncorrected conditions or provide required findings; on appeal, the court reversed and remanded for proper due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the termination order identify the specific uncorrected condition? | Albert argues no precise condition identified; due process requires clear notice. | State contends substantial notice via court-approved ISPs; strict wording not required. | Fundamental error; order and verdicts must identify the uncorrected condition. |
| Did the ISPs adequately address Mother's mental health as the root condition? | Albert asserts mental illness was the true condition; ISPs failed to address it. | State claims ISPs covered substance abuse and mental health through referrals; adequate. | ISPs failed to target the actual condition (mental illness); due process violated. |
| Were the jury instructions and verdict forms proper to support termination? | Verdict forms lacked condition-specific findings; OUJI form insufficient. | Standard form used; no requirement for multiple independent verdicts. | Jury instructions and verdict forms inadequate; requires specific findings. |
| Was the three-month period to correct and best interests properly addressed? | Court failed to ensure three-month period and best-interests findings. | These findings were implicit or overlap with best interests. | Deficiencies persist without explicit three-month and best-interests findings. |
| Does due process require remand with tailored ISP and time to comply? | Due process demands explicit conditions and time for correction. | Remand not necessary if error cured, but current record shows flaws. | Remand required to modify ISP to address mental illness and allow proper time to comply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of L.S., 1990 OK CIV APP 94, 805 P.2d 120 (OK Civ. App. 1990) (reversed for failure to identify statutory grounds and required findings)
- Matter of B.M.O., 1992 OK CIV APP 89, 838 P.2d 38 (OK Civ. App. 1992) (termination must show the specific conditions leading to deprivation)
- Matter of E.M., 1999 OK CIV APP 82, 976 P.2d 1098 (OK Civ. App. 1999) (absence of requisite findings voids termination order)
- Matter of B.C., 2010 OK CIV APP 103, 242 P.3d 589 (OK Civ. App. 2010) (ISPs and orders must identify uncorrected conditions; jury must have such findings)
- Matter of C.R.T., 2008 OK CIV APP 29, 66 P.3d 1004 (OK Civ. App. 2008) (mental illness can be the root condition; termination must address it)