Justia Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court ordered the transfer of a minor child, S.A.W., to a foster-adoption home that was in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act, and in the bests interests of the child. Foster mother, natural mother, father, child, and the State appealed. After review of this matter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the proper standard for a party showing a need for an ICWA-noncompliant child placement is clear and convincing evidence; and the evidence presented by appellants was sufficient to satisfy their burden, regardless whether the Court applied abuse-of-discretion or clear-and-convincing standards. The Court held the circumstances of this case did not warrant reversal of the judge's order based upon 10A O.S. 1-4-812. Appellants failed to satisfy their burden challenging natural father's status as not a member of his tribe. The Cherokee Nation met its burden showing the child was subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act. The evidence was sufficient to show an ICWA-noncompliant temporary placement as in the best interests of the child. As such, the Court affirmed the district court's order in part and reversed in part. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In the matter of M.K.T." on Justia Law

Same sex couple planned to have a child and co-parent. Upon the termination of their relationship and following almost ten years of co-parenting, the biological mother denied plaintiff's status as a parent and sought to end all interaction between plaintiff and child. Couple did not have a written agreement regarding parenting. Plaintiff petitioned the District Court in Oklahoma County seeking a determination of parental rights and custody. The District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss. The issue before the Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether the district court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction finding plaintiff lacked standing as a non-biological parent seeking custody and visitation. Specifically, the Court addressed: (1) whether the district court erred finding that a non-biological parent lacked standing because the same sex couple had not married and had no written parenting agreement; (2) whether a biological mother had the right as a parent to legally erase an almost ten year parental relationship that she voluntarily created and fostered with her same sex partner. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramey v. Sutton" on Justia Law

Both parties in this matter sought dissolution of their marriage on grounds of incompatibility. The wife informed the trial court that she was terminally ill and wanted to finalize the divorce before her death as she wished to leave her part of the estate to her daughters. The judge granted the parties the divorce, and filed a Court Minute memorializing his ruling. The judge signed and dated the Court Minute and the attorneys who represented the parties also signed. The judge included an order in the Court Minute for mediation to resolve property issues and further ordered that a journal entry be presented to the court within five days. However, the wife died before reaching a property settlement with the husband. No journal entry was filed. The husband filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that after the wife died, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the dissolution of marriage action. The wife's successors filed a response objecting to dismissal of the action. The trial court granted the husband's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether, where both parties sought dissolution of their marriage, was effective at the time pronounced by the trial court even though property issues had not been settled and no journal entry had been filed. Although a judgment is generally not "enforceable in whole or in part unless or until it is signed by the court and filed," Oklahoma law carves out an exception for divorce proceedings, where the adjudication of any issue shall be "enforceable when pronounced by the court." The Court found that the husband did not oppose the dissolution of the marriage; what he opposed in essence was the bifurcation of the divorce between the dissolution of the marriage and the property settlement. The implications of this for proceedings in which a spouse dies before a journal entry is filed, was that a trial court may pronounce that the marriage is dissolved, effective immediately, but that decision is not appealable until it is filed. The district court erred in dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded for the trial court to divide the property and take such further actions as were necessary. View "Alexander v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review was whether the district court erred in sustaining a legal parent's motion to disqualify opposing counsel. More specifically, the question centered on whether the integrity of the judicial process was likely to suffer real harm when an attorney who represents a client in a proceeding to establish paternity and to determine custody of a minor child failed to report suspected child abuse to the proper authorities as required by statute, conducts a forensic interview of the child to obtain evidence to support the client's position, did not obtain the legal parent's permission prior to the interview, and filed his own affidavit attesting to the credibility of the child's affidavit. Brandy Poindexter (Mother) is the legal parent of a minor child (Child) born in 2005. On September 6, 2006, Michael Jensen (Client) filed a paternity action seeking joint custody of Child. William D. Thomas (Attorney) filed an entry of appearance on Client's behalf, becoming Client's fourth attorney in the paternity proceeding. The issue of paternity is not contested, but the district judge has yet to enter a final paternity decree. Child again alleged that he had been abused by Mother and her husband. This time, Client did not report the new allegations to DHS, but instead brought the Child to Attorney to be interviewed. On January 12, 2014, Attorney conducted a forensic interview of Child without seeking permission from Mother or securing independent counsel for Child. Only Attorney and Child were present during the interview. At a subsequent hearing on paternity, Mother moved to disqualify Attorney. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in sustaining the motion to disqualify opposing counsel when the attorney likely compromised the legal parent's right to a fair proceeding by contaminating the fact-finding procedure and by establishing a relationship of undue influence with the child. View "Jensen v. Poindexter" on Justia Law

Kelly Jones was the biological mother of T.T.S. The State filed a petition seeking to adjudicate T.T.S. as a deprived child because the child "lacked 'appropriate parental care' and had been 'placed in threat of harm'" through mother's actions. Specifically, the state alleged the mother was a drug user and provided an unfit home environment for the child. In addition, the petition asserted that following a drug binge, mother was discovered by a law enforcement officer asleep with her boyfriend in a parking lot while T.T.S. slept nearby, unsupervised, in mother's car. Two windows had been broken on the vehicle and pieces of glass were located in T.T.S' child safety seat. The goal, according to the State's petition, was reunification of T.T.S. with mother. Throughout the pendency of this case, T.T.S. resided with foster parents. A subsequent Department of Human Services (DHS) progress report was filed with the trial court approximately a year later, and disclosed that mother had been arrested and was incarcerated in the Grayson County Jail in Sherman, Texas. A court minute filed after the review hearing suggested DHS intended to pursue termination of parental rights, which was ultimately granted. On appeal of the termination, mother challenged the trial court's failure to provide jurors with legally correct instructions and verdict forms. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the individualized service plan (ISP) contained an expansive list of remedial measures DHS desired mother to accomplish; some of the items were designated as mandatory, while others were characterized as desired. "What precisely was expected from mother in this case to re-establish physical custody of T.T.S. was less than clear." Moreover, the Court found that none of the State's applications to terminate mother's parental rights set forth the precise conditions mother failed to correct. Similarly, neither the jury instructions nor the verdict forms provided specificity with regard to the corrective measures mother had allegedly failed to ameliorate. Without this information mother could not effectively defend against the State's action to dissolve the parent-child relationship. "Due process requirements mandate reasonable notice of the conditions leading to a deprived adjudication, including jury instructions and verdict forms which outline a parent's purported noncompliance." View "In the matter of T.T.S." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Alan Benefiel and Christa Benefiel were divorced by a consent decree entered in 2005. Consistent with the terms of the parties' divorce decree, Plaintiff executed a quit claim deed, transferring title in the former marital residence to Christa. In exchange for relinquishing his ownership interest in the property, the decree required Christa to pay Plaintiff $25,000.00 as alimony in lieu of property division. Payments were structured incrementally over a period of four years; $10,000 was due in 2005, and $5,000 was payable on January 31 for years 2006, 2007, and 2008. As security for the property division judgment, Plaintiff was awarded a lien encumbering the residence. The lien was to remain in effect until all payments were completed. Further, the decree contained a clause which vested Plaintiff with the right to immediate title and possession of the property should Christa fail to timely remit any of the annual installments Prior to paying the final installment, Christa sold the subject real property to a third-party, Jewel Boulton. Boulton paid $17,000.00 as a down payment and financed the remainder of the purchase price. Though the divorce decree had not been filed with the local county clerk, it was made a part of the abstract of title. Despite its inclusion in the abstract, a title opinion issued prior to closing failed to identify the divorce judgment as a potential cloud or defect. Christa failed to make the final property division installment due on January 31, 2008. Plaintiff filed suit against both Boulton and Christa, asserting several claims, including demands to quiet title and to allow foreclosure of the lien. In her Answer, Boulton maintained that Plaintiff had no right, title, or interest in the house and that his lien from the divorce decree was ineffective and void. Both Boulton and Plaintiff sought summary judgment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, finding: (1) the divorce decree created a valid "mortgage lien" against the property; (2) Christa defaulted on the property division obligation; and (3) in accordance with the divorce decree, Christa's default resulted in the automatic reversion of title to Plaintiff. In a prior appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals invalidated the reversionary clause, but found the property was subject to a valid lien. On remand, Boulton invoked her statutory right of redemption, under 42 O.S. 20, by paying the underlying obligation plus interest; however, Boulton's discharge of the lien was not accomplished for more than three years after litigation was commenced. Thus, Plaintiff was the prevailing party on the lien foreclosure claim. After its review, the Supreme Court held that Boulton's redemption of the subject property occurred when she tendered both the underlying $5,000.00 obligation and the accumulated interest owed thereon. The Court of Appeals' opinion was thus vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Benefiel v. Boulton" on Justia Law

When T.H. was three, the parental rights of her mother were terminated. Within a year, T.H. was adopted. T.H. lived with her adoptive parents until she was 15 years old, when she disclosed that her adoptive father had been sexually abusing her since she was five or six years of age. A deprived petition was filed, both adoptive parents consented to termination of their parental rights, and a trial court granted the petition in 2013. T.H. filed an application to reinstate the parental rights of her biological mother. In 2009, the Oklahoma Legislature enacted section 1-4-909, Okla. Stat. tit. 10A (Supp. 2009), which allowed a child to request a court to reinstate previously terminated parental rights under specified circumstances. T.H. filed her application based on section 1-4-909, alleging her circumstances satisfied all criteria for reinstatement of her biological mother's parental rights. The State objected arguing that one element of the statute had not been met. The trial court agreed with the State and entered an order denying the application. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding the statute to be ambiguous but applied an "as written" literal construction of the statute to hold that the application was properly denied. The issue this case raised on appeal to the Supreme Court was one of first impression, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that the lower courts failed to construe the statute in a manner consistent with the rules of construction and the legislative intent stated in the Children's Code. View "In the matter of T.H." on Justia Law

Petitioner Baby F., through his attorney, requested that the Oklahoma Supreme Court assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of prohibition forbidding the trial court from authorizing a change in his resuscitation status from full code to allow-natural-death pursuant to 10A O.S. 2011 section 1-3-102(C)(2). Baby F was one of several siblings the State sought to take into its emergency custody in an Application to Take Minor Children Into Emergency Custody on April 4, 2013. At that time, three-month-old Baby F had allegedly been diagnosed with several anomalies and genetic issues. At the hearing, Baby F's attending doctor testified as to Baby F's deteriorating condition, noting the numerous conditions identified when Baby F was born prematurely, and his continued respiratory troubles. According to the doctor, Baby F's acute respiratory events began to increase over time, necessitating several transfers to another facility, and the staff began to feel conflicted that they might be doing more to Baby F than for Baby F. Baby F filed an application to assume original jurisdiction and petition for a writ of prohibition, however, while this original action was pending, the State received a letter from Baby F's physician of record at The Children's Hospital at OU Medical Center, stating that Baby F's condition had deteriorated to the point where he could not survive without being in a medically induced coma and medically paralyzed on a life supporting ventilator, and there was no reason to suspect the situation would improve. The letter noted the child was suffering and that further life sustaining therapy was not appropriate. An emergency hearing was held, and based on the doctor's testimony, the State moved to dismiss Baby F. from a deprived petition and requested that the court place the child in the custody of his mother and father for purpose of their consent to the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, thereby negating the need for the trial court's approval under 10A O.S. 2011 sec. 1-3-102(C)(2). The State also requested the court vacate the stay it previously issued in order to proceed. The trial court vacated its previous stay and dismissed the deprived child proceeding only as to Baby F and returned Baby F to his parents' custody. Baby F died on January 10, 2015. Petitioner alleged that by failing to provide for an evidentiary standard and fact-finding, 10A O.S. 2011 sec. 1-3-102(C)(2) violated the requirements of substantive due process. The Supreme Court agreed, and determined: 1) that though Petitioner died during the pendency of these proceedings, this case fell within recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine; and 2) in order to comply with the requirements of due process, before a withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment or the denial of the administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on behalf of a child in DHS custody could be authorized under 10A O.S. 2011 sec. 1-3-102(C)(2), the court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that doing so is in the best interest of the child. View "Baby F v. Oklahoma County Dist. Ct." on Justia Law

In 2010, Denise Schweigert (Mother) filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Tony Schweigert (Father) and an application for a temporary order. Mother sought both temporary and permanent custody of the couple's two children with supervised visitation with Father. Father was personally served the summons, the petition for dissolution of marriage, the application for a temporary order, and the order for hearing. Father appeared at the hearing on August 9, 2010. However, he did not file an answer or entry of appearance. Approximately one year later, the August 9, 2010 order was filed, giving Mother temporary custody of the children, allowing Father supervised visitation as agreed by the parties, and setting the temporary child support of $283.01 per month. The temporary order acknowledged that the "Respondent, TONY W. SCHWEIGERT, appear[ed] in person and Pro se" at the hearing. The record did not show that Father saw the temporary order or had a chance to contest its contents before it was filed. The record also did not show that a copy of the temporary order was ever sent to Father. Mother did not file a motion for default, and neither the decree nor any other document in the record said anything about any attempt to serve Father with notice of the hearing on the default judgment or whether his address was unknown. Nonetheless, Mother was granted a divorce, custody of the minor children with supervised visitation with Father, and child support of $283.01. Further, neither the transcript of the hearing for a temporary order nor the transcript of the 2011 hearing was designated for inclusion in the record. In 2013, Father filed a motion to vacate based on fraud and lack of due process. He contended that Mother defrauded him into not filing an answer and that he did not receive notice of the default hearing as required by Rule 10. At the hearing on the motion to vacate the default judgment, the district court stated: "I don't think that just appearing in court triggers making an appearance." A district court order was filed stating the matter came before the judge on October 22, 2013, denying the motion to vacate and finding "Respondent failed to meet Rule 10 requirement of entry, therefore Petitioner was not required to provide notice of default hearing to Respondent." Respondent appealed the denial of the motion to vacate, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment. The dispositive question raised for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review was whether a party must file a motion for default and give the adverse party notice under Rule 10 of the Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S.2011, ch. 2, app., when the adverse party fails to file an answer or an entry of appearance but physically appears at a hearing. The Court answered "yes," reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schweigert v. Schweigert" on Justia Law

Partners in a civil union signed co-parenting agreements designating Plaintiff as the parent of Defendant's two biological children. Upon their separation and dissolution of the civil union, Plaintiff continued to act as a parent for the children. Defendant removed the children from Plaintiff's care, changed their last names, and planned to remove the children from Oklahoma. Plaintiff petitioned the District Court for, inter alia, a determination of her parental rights. The district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed. This was an issue of first impression in Oklahoma. Addressing the threshold issue of standing with regard to plaintiff's case, the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff had standing to seek a best-interests-of-the-child hearing when the biological parent relinquished some of her parental rights through a co-parenting agreement. As such, the Court concluded the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss the case, and remanded the case to address other issues plaintiff raised on appeal. View "Eldredge v. Taylor" on Justia Law