In the Matter of McNeely
734 P.2d 1294
Okla.
1987
Check Treatment

*1 is time from point anterior of the discipline legal force.2 operate with No McNEELY, to In the Matter of Suzanne imposed respondent lawfully be could alleged deprived child. provisions the of proceeding under Governing Disciplinary Pro- Rules Rule McNEELY, C. Daniel supra, ceedings, long appeal as from Plaintiff-Appellant, remained unterminated. criminal conviction disciplinary simply was The instant disposition subject fit for final while not a DELMER, formerly Angeline R. ap- in the respondent’s conviction remained McNeely, Defendant-Appellee. process Today’s disbar- pellate of review.3 oper- hence be made to order cannot ment No. 59829. anterior to point any with effect from ate Supreme the date mandate of in the Court Oklahoma. appeal. criminal of respondent’s license I would order March 1987. by disbar- practice to law stand revoked April effective post visions that follow: pline from W.Va. Anderson v. ALR S.W.2d Rule 7.3 Interim Rule escrow First en to lawfully principle man v. Law relation-back doctrine Withers v. jurisdiction of a crime which demonstrates gardless from from verdict after "Upon receipt indictment or such discipline operate. mortem Nat. judgment-and-sentence Dictionary 1072, 1079; 7.1 lawyer been pendency relation-back Rule 7 acts sentence, Hockman, lawyer's occur at the Criminal that an act done plea Bank v. Carter, or events a convicted of whether 23 S.E. 792 done Maynard v. as herein 598 [Mo. delivery Mauk, Tenn. procedure who has been convicted See decedent-grantor information of the certified unfitness suspension 45 Va. at an earlier time.” Black’s 93 Va. see also cases which validate guilty Huntington Distilling conviction (4 Murfree doctrine is Supreme which either did or could of deeds time 1966], anterior Donnelly Yerg) lawyer appeal.” trial, 5th ed. provided, Hustead, [1895]; (4 Grat) today from nolo contendere conviction resulted imposition is found in from 25 S.E. 534 Court shall who has initially placed practice effect explained as annotation is considered in his 407 [1848] copies Carmack and lawyer Robinson, [1833]; regardless practice subject judgment appealed lifetime. law, they of disci- By [1896]; Hock in 5 pro- any “[a] giv or- re- Rule 7.4 Rule 7.5 peal, final “If and the Court shall order the Bar Association shall inform the peal, the General Counsel of the Oklahoma which demonstrates practice severity return of the discipline his conduct or expressly pline and/or order to show practice conviction shall be dismissed "If an of conviction and and the such time as the Court shall fix in shall direct the certain, [Emphasis added.] der Court. discipline.” [Emphasis the conviction becomes judgment disciplinary proceedings immediately suspend evidence lawyer respond or the Appeal In its order lawyer cause law, suspension of law until in Rule 7.4." state whether should show imposed upon discipline. The General Counsel judgment may in the evidence by submission of a brief supporting the same is by way mitigating the disci- lawyer remains convicted perfected conviction cause, lawyer writing why not be made. The written conviction such the matter should be set aside. of is affirmed as tending shall be verified and if procedure judgment further lawyer’s interest suspension [Emphasis added.] his recommendation any him, from the hearing is affirmed appear final based lawyer immediately. he lawyer, shall submit a brief final order of Chief Justice has, why unfitness to mitigate without of a crime upon explaining at the Court judgment modified reversed, from apply order desired. making and/or a time within such * *’’ ap- ap- the

Thomas A. City, Oklahoma for plaintiff-appellant. Cooke,
Don Cooke, Miskovsky Messrs. & City, for defendant-appellee. OPALA, Justice. Davis Davis1 held we 10 O.S. 1981 public-law/state-action 11302 to be a

statute whose are invocable by the question state. The here is whether subsequent amendment of that 1130(D), 10 O.S.Supp.1986 which allows a be brought suit to grounds, retroac- tively to validate father’s claim to sev- erance of maternal ties this case. We negative answer and reverse parties’ court’s order that declared child “deprived” to stand status and terminated the bond. 2. See Part II the text of 10 footnote 3 O.S.1981 infra 1130(A)(4). 10 O.S.1981 Custody daughter of the minor in contest I reposed parties in the mother when AMENDMENT IN O.S. THE 1986 were divorced 1971. Because she could (OKL.SESS.L. 1130(D) SUPP.1986 § child, financially care for the she relin- 1) CH. MAY NOT BE quished custody later and had it TO APPLIED RETROACTIVELY In 1982 the father. formally transferred DE- TERMINATION VALIDATE resident, sought *3 father, an INTERPAREN- IN PRIVATE CREES TAL HAD BEEN bond CONTESTS WHICH the maternal to secure ON 1130 BROUGHT GROUNDS § in 10 O.S.1981 grounds then on AND APPEL- WERE AWAITING (4)3 1130(A)(2) and —abandonment LATE THE REVIEW ON EFFEC- sup- daughter’s to contribute failure THE TIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT. period 11-year During the critical port. father her daughter lived with when the mother, Michigan resi- a

she visited dispositive The issue here—one mother, whose con- dent, The only twice. neither nor briefed public law—was raised made issues infrequent, by parties. public-law When are were with her child tacts review, resolve present may, court on support contributions. no legal that by theories application them (a) the moth- decreed trial court The below.4 were tendered support the child obligation er to cultivate and, (b) she had failed because interparental us is an Before con relationship dur- adequate parent-child an enactment, brought test under an held in with the daughter lived time her ing the a Davis5 “state-action” effectively father, was the maternal bond does not a a afford basis for deprived (c) stood in the child destroyed, interparental Although post- contest. was ter- (d) bond the mother’s status 11306 Davis amendment conferred on ground of her “abandon- private litigants right on the minable base termi section, nation claims that amend Appeals affirmed The Court ment.” ment was held v. by certiorari. review now seeks the mother Griffith Griffith7 5. See footnote 1 See Art. 5 § immediately upon City § 1130 was the The terms ed below were not See Sess.L.1986, Special Indemnity Section 1130 was last amended in 1986 with the provided in a decree of divorce or in some to contribute to the or" tions: other court order or, emergency 4.A only change also, in the absence of such legislature nn provides: parent Lawton, Okl., emerg. footnote of O.S.1981 parent's Ch. [*] 10 clause Okl.Const. 243, eff. June effected amended addition 842 [1948] and McCracken v. the child changed n means and 6 child in the approval Fund v. during infra. 1). support that it [Okl.Sess.L.1986, 12, § 1130 1130(A)(4)provided: P.2d by terminate has Reynolds, earning capacity: 1986]. became effective this amendment. subsection n provisions quot- following of the child as preceding amendment in willfully the Governor. who does not consistent 1986 with n failed situa- (Okl. (D), Ch. 7.Okl., 730 P.2d 524 [1986]. mons v. Okl., casting Corp. v. Leeco Oil A statute enacted as by veto. Art. statutes otherwise. resolved eration unless the comes effective 116 P. 777 [1911]. Winters, Okl, supervision parent this section. child is parent court Governor or against the Muskogee petition by delinquent, deprived listed in construed as to terminate the §5 or there guardian A parents immediately upon prior finding by P.2d not be legislature clearly Good paragraphs Medical Center an Okl. Bailey, retroactive effect. Ham of child for emergency of a child [1985]; Trinity having prospective op its enactment Const., 362-364 parental rights doubt, Keel, 1 inor a court that a through may petition measure its [1961]. guardian.” Authority, intended approval must Jones over need of Broad of the filing 5 of aof be All mother, like this prospective. not be a parent who has not the father in this In discharge any benefit case. failed court-imposed obli- Grif- fith, pending gation a termination case that was or some legal well-defined duty and who bore no custodial responsibility, does at the pronounce- time of our Davis given not come purview retroactive within the of “abandon- effect.8 controls our ment” as a statutory parental bond’s severance. To the extent that Mat- this case. ter James H.9 is inconsistent with to- quest Since the father’s for termination day’s holding, teaching its disapproved legal status vis-a-vis her and withdrawn. waged child was within the framework of a private interparental contest, none granted; of the Certiorari Appeals’ Court of grounds provided in the then-effective is vacated and the trial court’s ter- 1130 was invocable a basis for mater- mination decree is reversed. short, nal bond’s severance. the father *4 standing termination, to seek HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and permitted court erred when it him LAVENDER, SUMMERS, SIMMS and assert claim for extinguishment of the JJ., concur. rights on either of the two grounds prescribed in the then-effective WILSON, J., concurs in result. 1130(A)(2) (4).

version of

KAUGER, J., part dissents in part. concurs in II DOOLIN, C.J., HODGES, J., THE PARAMETERS OF “ABANDON- dissent. 1130(A)(2) MENT” AAS GROUND FOR SEVERANCE AOF NONCUS- KAUGER, Justice, dissenting part TODIAL PARENT’S BOND concurring in part: There is why another reason the trial I dissent I of section court’s termination decree cannot stand. expressed my the reasons dissents in rests on the mother’s “abandonment” of Davis, Davis prescribed child —a Griffith, (Okla.1985) and 1130(A)(2). The cited enactment’s ver- (Okla.1986) (57 P.2d 524 OBJ Decem- sion in effect when the cause was under 20, 1986). ber I concur in section II. consideration provided: below terminate the of a to a child in the follow- ing situations:

[******] who is

entitled to of the child has

abandoned it; [Emphasis or” persuaded by plain

We are lan

guage and hence hold rule, general judicial 8. As a Dept. Transp., decision [1985], overrules former decision retroactive in pronouncement The effect of our operation. Texas Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commis- former, note over sion, Okl., 988 [1952]. Retroactive ruled law. See decision never was Co. Texas operation overruling decision is neither Commission, supra Tax prohibited by nor the United States policy Constitution. Judicial er, determines wheth- 9. Okl.App., 593 extent, and to what new law will rule qperate retroactively. Griggs v. ex ret