In the Matter of J.S., N.A. and M.A., Alleged Deprived Children
Case Number: 123335
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I
Decided: 05/14/2026
2026 OK CIV APP 19
Mandate Issued: 06/17/2026
In the Matter of the J.S., N.A., and M.A., Alleged Deprived Children, J.S., N.A. and M.A., Appellants, vs. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CARTER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE CARSON M. BROOKS, TRIAL JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Evan Humphreys, OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF FAMILY REPRESENTATION, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Appellants,
Pat Madden, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Ardmore, Oklahoma, For Appellee.
ROBERT D. BELL, JUDGE:
¶1 In this deprived children proceeding, Appellants, the minor children, J.S., born February 7, 2011; N.A., born September 28, 2015; and M.A., born January 18, 2017 (Children), appeal from the trial court‘s order adjudicating Children to be deprived and removing Children from their mother‘s custody. Laci Shupp, the biological mother of the children (Mother), stipulated to the allegations in the deprived Children petition, and does not appeal from the adjudication. Stacy Frost is believed to be the biological father of J.S. Alberto Aguilar, Jr. is the biological father of N.A. and M.S. Biological fathers do not appeal from the adjudication. On appeal, Children allege the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed to appoint counsel for Mother prior to the adjudication hearing; when the court entered the adjudication order without support by sworn testimony or documentary evidence; and when the court found Mother‘s use of licensed medical marijuana was a condition to correct. This Court holds Children have standing to assert Mother‘s statutory and constitutional right to have counsel appointed on Mother‘s behalf, but finds no reversible error occurred when the court accepted Mother‘s pro-se stipulations to the petition. After the adjudication, the trial court appointed counsel for Mother and Mother reaffirmed her stipulations. This Court finds Appellee, the State of Oklahoma (State), satisfied its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the remainder of the petition‘s factual allegations and holds State‘s evidence is competent evidence in support of the trial court‘s adjudication of Children as deprived. This Court also affirms the trial court‘s determination that Mother‘s use/addiction to licensed medical marijuana is a condition to correct.
¶2 Children lived with Mother and Aguilar. The Department of Human Services (DHS) took Children into custody in June 2025. State filed a petition to have Children determined deprived based on the following allegations: drug use, exposure to domestic violence, Mother left Children in the care of two registered sex offenders overnight, Mother has an extensive history with DHS including five substantiated cases out of multiple referrals, Aguilar failed to protect Children from Mother, and Aguilar was charged with misdemeanor domestic abuse in 2018. Mother appeared pro se and stipulated to the factual allegations in State‘s petition. Children‘s counsel was present at the adjudication and did not object to Mother‘s stipulations or the trial court‘s adjudication of Children as deprived. The trial court adjudicated Children as deprived July 7, 2025. Children now appeal from the adjudication.
¶3 On appeal, Children first contend the trial court committed fundamental error when it failed to appoint counsel for Mother prior to the adjudication hearing. Title
¶4 While this appeal was pending, the trial court held a disposition hearing. The disposition hearing was attended by Mother and her counsel, Children‘s counsel, and the assistant district attorney. Prior to the hearing, the court offered to conduct an adjudication hearing on the petition. Mother consulted with her counsel and maintained her stipulations. Children‘s counsel declined to challenge the court‘s acceptance of the stipulations. For the first time on appeal, Children dispute the efficacy of Mother‘s pro-se stipulations and the trial court‘s deprived adjudication based thereon.
¶5 “Where a party makes no objection to the trial court but raises the issue on appeal, the authority of the appellate court to review such issue is severely limited.” Matter of M.R., 2024 OK 28, ¶8, 548 P.3d 120. “However, an issue is still reviewable for fundamental error even when no exception has been taken.” Id. Additionally, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered Children to address their standing to challenge the trial court‘s failure to appoint counsel for Mother, which they have. Thus, this Court will now consider whether Children have standing to assert Mother‘s rights to have counsel appointed on her behalf.
¶6 Children maintain they have standing to raise this issue because it impacts their own fundamental right to family integrity and the trial court‘s failure to appoint counsel for Mother injured Children. When standing is at issue, this Court must determine whether the persons whose standing is challenged are proper parties to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Matter of M.R., 2024 OK 28, ¶15, 548 P.3d 120 (quotation omitted). Indisputably, Children have standing in this proceeding which ultimately could sever Mother‘s parental rights. The question is whether Children may assert that the rights of another party - their mother - have been injured as grounds to reverse a deprived adjudication.
¶7 Generally, parties can only assert that their own interests and legal rights have been injured, and not those of third parties. Matter of M.R., 2024 OK 28 at ¶15. However, Mother‘s right to care, custody, companionship and management of her children is a fundamental right protected by the federal and state constitutions. Matter of Adoption of L.D.S., 2006 OK 80, ¶11, 155 P.3d 1. Concomitantly, Children‘s right to familial integrity is a constitutionally protected interest. In re A.L.F., 2010 OK 59, ¶ 6, 237 P.3d 217 (reiterating the presumption that the child‘s best interest lies with family integrity). Consequently, the legal disposition of Mother‘s parental rights with respect to Children necessarily affects and alters Children‘s rights with respect to Mother. For this reason, this Court holds Children have a personal stake in the outcome of this proceeding and have standing to challenge not only the propriety of the trial judge‘s decision adjudicating the Children as deprived, but also to assert Mother‘s statutory and constitutional right to appointment of counsel was violated at the adjudication hearing.
¶8 Even though Children have standing to raise Mother‘s right to appointment of counsel, there is no basis to reverse the adjudication order. Children‘s counsel attended the adjudication hearing and had the same right and opportunity to present such evidence and to object to Mother‘s stipulations but did not do so. Additionally, this Court cannot find reversable harm resulted from Mother‘s initial appearance pro se because any error resulting therefrom was cured by the subsequent disposition proceeding which occurred after the appeal was commenced1 and when Mother - while represented by counsel - reaffirmed her stipulations and Children‘s counsel declined to object thereto. By these actions, the alleged error became moot. See State ex. rel. Okla. Firefighters Pension and Ret. Sys. v. City of Spencer, 2009 OK 73, ¶4, 237 P.3d 125. “Where, as here, after an appeal has been commenced, conditions arise which preclude an appellate decision from affording any effective relief, the appeal will be dismissed for mootness.” Id. Accordingly, Children‘s first assignment of error is rejected as moot.
¶9 Next, Children argue there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court‘s order determining Children to be deprived. Children argue State failed to present sworn testimony of actual harm suffered by Children while in Mother‘s custody. Conversely, Children argue J.S. was sexually assaulted while in State‘s custody. According to Children‘s appellate brief, all three Children wish to return to Mother‘s custody.
¶10 In a deprived child proceeding, State must file a petition seeking the adjudication of Children as deprived.
¶11 While no sworn testimony in support of the factual allegations in the petition was presented at the adjudication hearing, there was competent evidence, by virtue of Mother‘s stipulations, supporting State‘s factual allegations that Children should be adjudicated deprived. “Generally, stipulations as to facts are binding upon the parties and the courts” at trial and on appeal. State ex rel. State Ins. Fund v. JOA, Inc., 2003 OK 82, ¶6, 78 P.3d 534. This Court therefore finds competent evidence supports the trial court‘s judgment. Children‘s second assignment of error is rejected.
¶12 This Court further notes Children and Mother are not precluded from relitigating the facts, in subsequent proceedings, as to whether Mother‘s acts or omissions caused or contributed to the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication. In re G.G., 2004 OK CIV APP 71, ¶17, 97 P.3d 1155. The same questions of fact may be relitigated because State‘s preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof at the adjudication stage increases to clear-and-convincing-evidence burden of proof at termination stage.2 Id.; Matter of C.M., 2018 OK 93, ¶19, 432 P.3d 763 (“In parental termination cases, the State bears the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child‘s best interest is served by the termination of parental rights and that Section 1-4-904 requirements have been met.“).
¶13 Children next argue Mother‘s use of licensed medical marijuana should not be a condition to correct. This Court disagrees. Mother‘s abusive use/addiction to medical marijuana, even if licensed, is still an appropriate condition to correct if Mother‘s use of marijuana - usually with zero physician monitoring - poses a safety threat or a threat of harm to the children. See, e.g., In re B.W., 2012 OK CIV APP 104, 293 P.3d 986 (Father‘s alcohol abuse was an unresolved condition to correct because father‘s alcohol (substance) abuse posed a safety threat to the minor children); and In re State in Interest of K.P., 2012 OK CIV APP 32, 275 P.3d 161 (Mother‘s abuse of prescription drugs, by taking more than what was prescribed, was a safety condition to correct). This Court therefore holds the trial court did not err when it included Mother‘s abusive use/addiction to licensed medical marijuana as a condition that Mother must correct.
¶14 AFFIRMED.
SWINTON, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.