T.H. v. State, 348 P.3d 1089

T.H.'s biological mother's parental rights were terminated in 2000; T.H. was adopted in 2001.
At age 15 T.H. disclosed long-term sexual abuse by her adoptive father; the adoptive parents consented to termination of their parental rights in 2013.
T.H. filed an application under 10A § 1-4-909 to reinstate her biological mother’s parental rights in April 2013.
The trial court denied the application, finding T.H. had achieved permanency within three years of the original termination; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to interpret whether the statutory requirement that a child "has not achieved his or her permanency plan within three (3) years of a final order of termination" includes a placement that later failed.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the phrase includes situations where an earlier permanency (e.g., adoption) subsequently failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase "has not achieved his or her permanency plan within three (3) years of a final order of termination" permits reinstatement when a prior permanency placement (adoption) later failed	T.H.: "has not achieved" means the child lacks permanency at the time of application; a failed adoption qualifies	State: statute is plain — T.H. achieved permanency by adoption within three years of the original termination, so she is ineligible	Court: ambiguous statute must be construed in light of the Children's Code; it includes cases where a prior permanency placement failed, so T.H.'s application should not have been denied

Fulsom v. Fulsom, 81 P.3d 652 (Okla. 2003) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
In re Christina T., 590 P.2d 189 (Okla. 1979) (summary judgment procedures are inapplicable in juvenile proceedings)
Darrow v. Integris Health, Inc., 176 P.3d 1204 (Okla. 2008) (distinguishing legal sufficiency review from evidentiary summary judgment)
In re J.L.M., 109 P.3d 336 (Okla. 2005) (statutory ambiguity requires examination of the full legislative scheme and intent)
In re BTW, 241 P.3d 199 (Okla. 2010) (Children's Code to be liberally construed to promote permanency and family unification)