IN THE MATTER OF A.F.K.

OSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF A.F.K.

OSCN navigation

Home

Courts

Court Dockets

Legal Research

Calendar

Help

Previous Case

Top Of Index

This Point in Index

Citationize

Next Case

Print Only

IN THE MATTER OF A.F.K.

2014 OK CIV APP 6

317 P.3d 221

Case Number: 111622; Cons. w/111625

Decided: 12/05/2013

Mandate Issued: 01/03/2014

DIVISION III

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION III

Cite as: 2014 OK CIV APP 6 , 317 P.3d 221

IN THE MATTER OF A.F.K.; M.J.K. and M.A.K., DEPRIVED

CHILDREN:

DENISE KNIGHT, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF

LINCOLN COUNTY,

OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE SHEILA KIRK, TRIAL JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Mathew Thomas, STUART, CLOVER, DURAN, THOMAS & VORNDRAN, Shawnee,

Oklahoma, for Appellant Mother,

Russ B. Haskins, Shawnee, Oklahoma, for

Appellant Father,

Tracy L. McDaniel, Lincoln County District Attorney's

Office, Chandler, Oklahoma, for Appellee,

Traci L. Soderstrom, Del City,

Oklahoma, for Minor Children.

BRIAN JACK GOREE, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal of an order terminating parental rights following a jury

trial. The State of Oklahoma alleged the parents failed to correct the

conditions which led to the finding that their children were deprived. The

parents were given notice of the conditions that needed to be corrected in

September of 2011 and the State's motion to terminate parental rights, based on

those same conditions, was filed in December of 2012. Six verdict forms were

completed by the jury, one for each parent as to each of their three children.

The verdict forms contain special interrogatories, and the jury specified the

precise conditions they found the parents had failed to correct. The termination

order includes findings that the parents were permitted not less than three

months to correct the conditions, that termination is in the best interest of

the children, and that the conditions alleged in the Petition were not

corrected. The order does not specifically identify the conditions that were not

corrected. But neither parent seeks reversal based on an objection to the form

of the termination order. 1

¶2 Three issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the State presented

clear and convincing evidence to support the verdicts, (2) whether the State

made reasonable efforts to return the children to their home, and (3) whether an

indigent parent received effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

¶3 On June 16, 2011, State filed a petition alleging M.A.K., M.J.K., and

A.F.K. (Children) were deprived because of (1) exposure to domestic violence,

(2) exposure to substance abuse, (3) lack of a permanent residence, and (4)

being left [with] or being exposed to inappropriate care givers. The petition

identified the parents as Denise Knight (Mother) and Levi Knight (Father).

¶4 On August 22, 2011, the case came on for adjudication and both parents

stipulated to the allegations in the petition. On September 22, 2011, Mother

appeared personally and Father appeared by his counsel at a disposition hearing.

The Disposition Order adopted an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) and advised

Mother and Father "that failure to comply with any requirements of the treatment

plan or any requirements of the Court including failing to appear at any court

hearing may result in the loss of custody of the children or the termination of

parental rights to the children." The September 2011 ISP was given to both

parents. Below the section entitled, "Conditions or Behaviors which need to be

changed or corrected" the ISP states: "Parents need to not engage in domestic

violence in the home. Parents need to protect their children from dangerous

people. Parents need to not abuse substances. Parents need to have a stable

home." We observe that the allegations of the Petition which led to the

adjudication that Children were deprived are consistent with the conditions set

forth in the ISP that parents needed to correct. 2

¶5 The ISP required each Parent to attend domestic violence classes, attend

drug and alcohol education groups, submit to random drug testing, obtain legal

and verifiable means of income, obtain adequate stable housing, follow through

with medical professionals to assure M.A.K.'s medical needs are met, 3 complete a

parenting course, visit Children as ordered by the trial court or by the DHS

worker, contact DHS worker at least once a month or as ordered by the trial

court, attend any scheduled court hearings, and pay child support as ordered by

the trial court.

¶6 On December 5, 2012, more than one year after Children were removed from

Parents' custody, State filed a Motion to Terminate Parental Rights seeking

termination of both Parents' parental rights. It alleged, pursuant to 10A O.S.

Supp. 2009 §1-4-904(B)(5), Parents failed to correct the conditions which led to

Children being adjudicated deprived, despite having been given more than three

months to correct the conditions. It also alleged it was in the best interest of

Children to terminate Parents' parental rights. 4

¶7 Each of the verdict forms provided:

We, the jury, empaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do upon

our oaths, find that the parental rights of [Parent] should be terminated on

the statutory ground that after being permitted a period of time not less

than three (3) months to correct the conditions which led to the finding

that the child is a deprived child, [Parent] has failed to do so. The

conditions that have not been corrected which led to the finding that the

child is a deprived child are:

___ Domestic Violence

___ Protect your children and refrain from exposing yourself and your

children to dangerous or inappropriate individuals

___ Substance Abuse

___ Maintain a safe and stable home

All six verdict forms bear check marks next to each of the conditions. 5

¶8 On February 27, 2013, the trial court entered an Order terminating

Parents' parental rights to Children in accordance with the verdicts. Mother

appeals (Case No. 111,622) and Father appeals (Case No. 111,625). The appeals

were consolidated pursuant to Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.27(d) under the surviving Case

No. 111,622.

¶9 Appellate review of parental termination decisions must be based upon the

clear-and-convincing evidence standard. Matter of S.B.C., 2002 OK 83 , ¶6, 64 P.3d 1080 , 1082. The factual

findings must rest on clear and convincing proof. State ex rel. A.W. , 2011 OK CIV APP 27, ¶7 , 250 P.3d 343, 346 .

Safe and Stable Home

¶10 According to the ISP, one reason the Department of Human Services

intervened was that Father and Mother moved with the children from one home to

another within a period of a few months or even weeks. In March of 2012, six

months before the State filed its motion to terminate, Parents acquired some

land near Sparks, Oklahoma and they were given the shell of a used mobile

home.

¶11 A child welfare specialist testified for the State. She stated the home

was unsafe because it did not have skirting around the base, thereby permitting

children to access the area under the home which included wiring that was

hanging down and could be dangerous. She also testified there was trash lying

around, as though a bag of household garbage had been emptied onto the yard.

There were piles of tires, mattresses, bottles, and paper. There was a

depression in the yard where a child could fall two or three feet. The stairs

leading to the front door were too high and there was no handrail. The wiring to

the front porch light was partially exposed. The child welfare specialist stated

she did not observe the inside of the home.

¶12 Father testified that when he was given the trailer, it was gutted. It

was one big open area with no walls, poor flooring, no light switches, no wall

plugs, no water heater, and no toilet. It was an empty shell. He has 15 years of

experience in construction and knows how to build houses.

¶13 He built walls to create a living room, hallway, and bedrooms. He added a

stove and microwave in the kitchen and installed plumbing items including a new

toilet, bathtub, shower, and hot water tank. He replaced the floor with new

plywood. He applied sealant to the new floors, painted the new walls, and

installed some carpet. He then installed a service pole for the electricity and

relied on the expertise of a licensed electrician to inspect the wiring and

perform the final connections before turning on the power.

¶14 When Father and Mother bought the property, it included an old foundation

of a home that had burned and the basement was exposed. They filled it in with

multiple loads of pea gravel but a portion is still below grade, which explains

the depression the child welfare worker described. Father agreed the home is not

finished after eleven months of work. He also conceded it is still not safe for

the children, but he is working on it. Mother argues their efforts to make the

home an appropriate residence for their children constitutes evidence of a

corrected condition. The record contains 16 photographs depicting the condition

of the land and the mobile home. The photos are consistent with the testimony of

Father as well as the DHS worker, except they do not show trash in the yard.

¶15 Father and Mother made significant progress in building a suitable

dwelling from the time they acquired their property in March of 2012 to the date

the State filed its motion to terminate their parental rights in December of

2012. The unsafe conditions identified by the State can be corrected within a

short period of time when compared to the work they have already invested in

their home. For example, the metal skirting would deter the children from being

exposed to dangerous conditions underneath a mobile home. Father testified he

has the missing skirt material on hand and it would take him one week to replace

it. We believe the other deficiencies of the home identified by the state can

also be corrected in a relatively short time period. We acknowledge Father's

candid admission that the house is not yet safe for his children. The jury found

that both parents failed to correct the condition of maintaining a safe and

stable home. We hold that the order terminating Father and Mother's parental

rights, insofar as it is based upon failure to correct the condition of

maintaining a safe and stable home, is not supported by clear and convincing

evidence.

Domestic Violence

¶16 In 2011, prior to Children being removed, Children told the DHS worker

that Parents hit and punched each other in the face and on the back. There is a

history of violence between the Parents which led to the requirement in the ISP

that they complete domestic violence classes.

¶17 Mother completed a domestic violence inventory, which is a diagnostic

tool to help determine if the individual has been in a violent relationship or

has tendencies that could lead to domestic violence. Based on answers to the

inventory questions, the evaluator will make recommendations for any counseling

services that might be necessary or beneficial. The September 2011 ISP required

Mother to attend domestic violence classes, but she did not submit to the

domestic violence inventory until November of 2012, more than a year later and

only one week before the State filed its motion to terminate her parental

rights.

¶18 At trial, Regan Green testified on behalf of Mother. Ms. Green is an

advocate for Project Safe, which is the service provider that conducted Mother's

domestic violence inventory. Based on Mother's inventory responses, no domestic

violence services were recommended. However, Mother nevertheless participated in

an eight-week class and attended seven of the sessions. On cross-examination,

Ms. Green admitted it is important that she know the history of a client's

domestic violence when recommending appropriate services. She then testified

that Mother had not disclosed that a protective order had been issued between

Mother and Father. Neither had Mother advised her that Father had been arrested

for domestic violence against Mother. Further, she was not told that Mother

continued living with Father despite the fact that Father had not received

domestic violence treatment. When Mother testified at trial, she admitted she

had not reported her domestic violence history on her inventory or to Ms. Green.

In fact, she admitted she never disclosed to Ms. Green that she had been a

victim of domestic violence.

¶19 Mother claims the most recent incident of domestic violence occurred in

2009, long before Children were adjudicated deprived. She claims this is not

evidence of an uncorrected condition and there is no evidence of domestic

violence after Children were removed from the home.

¶20 Father completed a domestic violence inventory in June of 2011. He was

required by the September 2011 ISP to participate in domestic violence

counseling. As a result of Father's 2010 conviction for domestic assault and

battery (he pleaded no contest), he was sentenced to complete a 52-week domestic

violence counseling program. The child welfare specialist testified that even

though the law permits a motion to terminate if a parent has not corrected the

conditions (that led to the deprived adjudication) within 90 days, the practice

of DHS is to allow parents a full year before recommending termination. At the

time of trial, Father had attended only four sessions of his 52-week domestic

violence counseling program.

¶21 Failure to comply with an ISP is not, in itself, grounds for termination

of parental rights, but noncompliance with the plan may be considered as

evidence that parental rights should be terminated because the parent has been

unable to correct conditions leading to the child's deprived status. Matter

of L.S. , 2013 OK CIV APP 21,

¶14 , 298 P.3d 544, 549 . The

Court of Civil Appeals in Matter of L.S. stated:

[The father's] inability to comply with the terms of the ISP and follow

often simple directives that were repeated at each visitation was especially

concerning, particularly in light of the fact that being a single father to

a toddler would be much more difficult than complying with the ISP itself.

Compliance with the ISP was a chance for Father to demonstrate he had met a

standard of conduct expected of him in order to correct the conditions

leading to the deprived adjudication and be in a position to responsibly

parent L.S. In re S.A. , 2007 OK CIV APP 97 , ¶12, 169 P.3d 730 , 735. The State

proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable to meet this

level of parental competence and the jury agreed. In re State of Oklahoma

In the Interest of K.P., 2012 OK CIV APP 32, ¶22 , 275 P.3d 161, 166-67 (failure

to comply with the ISP service plan, in itself, is not grounds for

termination of parental rights, but noncompliance with the plan may be

considered as evidence that parental rights should be terminated, because

the parent has been unable to correct conditions leading to the child's

deprived status).

¶22 In the present case, Father did not complete the ISP requirements which

would have demonstrated he had met a standard of conduct expected of him in

order to correct the condition relating to domestic violence. Mother attended

seven classes on her own terms - after delaying more than a year and then

purposefully hiding material facts directly relating to her domestic abuse

history. The jury could reasonably have concluded her dishonesty resulted in

avoidance of necessary treatment. We hold that noncompliance with the ISP is

evidence Father and Mother did not correct the condition of not engaging in

domestic violence in the home. Matter of L.S., 2013 OK CIV APP 21, ¶14 , 298 P.3d

at 549 . The order terminating Father and Mother's parental rights based upon

failure to correct the condition of domestic violence is supported by clear and

convincing evidence.

Substance Abuse

¶23 Mother argues the State's only evidence relating to substance abuse was

that she took legally prescribed medications. Father testified Mother was

bipolar; however, until trial, neither the trial court nor DHS had ever been

informed that Mother had this affliction. By the time of trial, Mother presented

prescriptions for the drugs Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, and Lortab, an opiate,

but there was no evidence of any physician's records describing an affliction

requiring those drugs. During the time Parents were working on the ISP, Mother

frequently tested positive for these prescription drugs.

¶24 In order to correct the condition of substance abuse, the ISP required

Mother to attend drug and alcohol education groups. She submitted to drug

assessments that totaled five hours. She had a treatment session for fifteen

minutes in October of 2011, a 45-minute individual counseling session in

November, and two separate 90-minute group sessions in December. In January of

2012 she had a 30-minute session and a 60-minute session a few weeks later. She

stopped attending sessions after losing her job in January of 2012 and did not

complete the treatment program. Father does not contend he corrected the

condition of substance abuse.

¶25 Because Mother did not complete her treatment program after being given

more than one year to do so, and Father does not take issue with the findings of

the jury, we hold the order terminating Father and Mother's parental rights

based upon failure to correct the condition of substance abuse is supported by

clear and convincing evidence.

Inappropriate Care Givers

¶26 Regarding exposure to inappropriate care givers, Mother points out that

before the Children were adjudicated deprived, Father was assaulted by his

brother, Tanner Schepp, who had threatened to kill Father's family. Father

obtained a protective order against him after Children were removed from the

home. She claims there is no evidence Children have been exposed to

inappropriate care givers since they were removed from the home.

¶27 Of course, because Children have been in the physical custody of a foster

parent since their removal, Parents have not had an opportunity to expose them

further to inappropriate care givers. However, because Parents previously had

exposed Children to several inappropriate care givers with criminal records who

also had their own children removed from their custody, the ISP required them to

complete parenting classes, as well as the substance abuse and domestic violence

classes to demonstrate a standard of conduct expected of them in order to

correct the conditions leading to the deprived adjudication and be in a position

to responsibly parent their Children. See Matter of L.S. , 2013 OK CIV APP 21, ¶14 , 298 P.3d 544, 549 .

¶28 In the present case, as in Matter of L.S., Mother did not complete

any ISP requirements which would have demonstrated she had met a standard of

conduct expected of her in order to correct the condition which led to the

deprived adjudication. Even though failure to comply with the ISP is not, in

itself, grounds for termination of parental rights, Mother's noncompliance may

be considered as evidence her parental rights should be terminated because she

failed to correct conditions leading to Children's deprived status. Father does

not contend he corrected this condition. We hold the order terminating Father

and Mother's parental rights based upon failure to correct the condition of

exposure of the children to inappropriate care givers is supported by clear and

convincing evidence.

Reasonable Efforts

¶29 Citing 10A O.S. 2011 §1-1-102(B)(5), 6 Father urges because of his health and

financial limitations, DHS did not make reasonable efforts to assist him in

correcting conditions leading to the deprived adjudication, and that it did not

provide financial help to pay for ISP-required classes.

¶30 Father testified he had an umbilical hernia surgically repaired shortly

after Children were removed from the home, the surgery failed, and he had

another surgery. He scrapped metal for income, earning from $70.00 to $900.00

per month. He also complained the gasoline expense was $55.00 or $60.00 to visit

Children in their foster home in Ada. 7

¶31 It is Parents' responsibility, not DHS's responsibility, to correct the

conditions which led to the deprived adjudication of Children. 10A. O.S. 2011

§1-4-904(B)(5)(a). Mrs. Walker, a DHS child investigation worker, worked with

Parents before Children were removed from their custody. Based on referrals in

January, February and April 2011 from a statewide hotline, she investigated the

family's home situation. She spoke with Parents on several occasions about

voluntary services which included domestic violence counseling, substance abuse

counseling, housing assistance, and financial assistance. From January 2011

through June 2011 when Children were removed, Parents did not seek or receive

these voluntary services. Because of Parents' failure to cooperate with her, she

had to close out the earlier referrals.

¶32 After Children were removed from Parents' custody in June 2011, Mrs.

Zumstein, the DHS worker assigned to Parents, testified that several times she

referred Parents to the website and the telephone number for the Department of

Rehabilitation Services which ". . . would have helped them with money to get to

retraining. It would have helped with transportation to get to stuff like that

which would have helped them." Again, Parents did not seek or receive assistance

from this service. Both before and after removal of Children, by informing and

encouraging Parents to avail themselves of voluntary services, DHS made

reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal of Children and to return

Children to the home.

Effective Legal Counsel

¶33 Mother also contends she lacked effective assistance of legal counsel. In

her brief-in-chief, she stated:

Here, counsel for the Mother presented a disjointed and rambling case

which confused and misled the finders of fact in this cause. Counsel for the

Mother made innumerable and duplicative objections which lacked any legal

basis, interrupted witnesses, and attempted to present extra-legal

requirements into jury instructions.

¶34 Mother also stated that, "[e]ven if the State had presented evidence

sufficient to meet the burden to establish the necessity of termination of

parental rights, because the Mother lacked effective assistance of legal

counsel, the matter should be reversed and remanded for proceedings in which the

Mother might receive adequate representation."

¶35 In parental rights termination cases, because the parties have a

constitutional and statutory right to be represented by an attorney, there

attaches the concomitant "right to effective assistance of counsel." Matter

of D.D.F., 1990 OK 89, ¶15 ,

801 P.2d 703 , 707. 8 In

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d

674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant's

claim that representation was so deficient so as to require reversal must show

(1) that the attorney's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. The Court also stated that "[j]udicial

scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential." Id. at

689 . In Matter of K.L.C., 2000 CIV APP 98, ¶9, 12 P.3d 478 , 481, the Court of Civil

Appeals took guidance from criminal cases and reasoned, "[i]n reviewing a claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel, we look at the proceedings as a

whole."

¶36 In reviewing these proceedings, Mother has not shown her counsel's

performance was deficient; in fact, it appears Mother's counsel zealously

represented her. Neither has Mother shown how this representation prejudiced

her. 9 Looking

at the proceedings as a whole, it is clear Mother did not meet her burden of

proving ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶37 AFFIRMED.

HETHERINGTON, P.J., adopts Judge Mitchell's specially concurring

opinion.

MITCHELL, J., concurring specially:

¶38 Although I highly approve of the verdict forms used in this case, the

termination order is lacking. We have held previously that the termination order

based on a failure to correct conditions must identify the uncorrected

conditions on which termination is based. Matter of R.A., W.A., Z.A. and

A.A. , 2012 OK CIV APP 65,

¶17 , 280 P.3d 65 ; Matter of B.M.O. , 1992 OK CIV APP 89 , 838 P.2d 38 ; Matter of E.M. ,

1999 OK CIV APP 32 , 976 P.2d 1098 ; Matter of

B.C. , 2010 OK CIV APP 103 ,

242 P.3d 589 . The termination

order in the instant case acknowledges the jury's findings, but fails to

identify the uncorrected conditions on which termination is based. The order

should identify the specific grounds for terminations and, if based on a failure

to correct conditions, specifically identify those uncorrected conditions. I

fully concur in all other respects.

FOOTNOTES

1 In its

Order, the trial court found: "The Jury found by clear and convincing evidence

that the children were adjudicated as deprived on August 22, 2011, that [Parents

have] failed to correct the conditions alleged in the State's Petition filed

June 16, 2011, which resulted in the deprived adjudication, that [Parents have]

been permitted a period of time of not less than three (3) months to correct the

conditions which [led] to the finding that the children are deprived, that

continued custody by the [Parents] is likely to result in serious emotional or

physical damage to the children as supported by the testimony of witnesses, and

it is in the best interest of the Respondent Juveniles to terminate the parental

rights of [Parents] in and to the Respondent Juveniles, [A.K., M.K., and

M.K.]."

2 In the

ISP, the reasons for the involvement of the Department of Human Services (DHS)

were:

The children were removed on 06/08/11 and placed in emergency OKDHS custody.

The family has substantial CW history that involves confirmed history regarding

Substance Abuse by Levi and Denise, Exposure to Domestic Violence, and Abuse

Kicking. The family has been offered services in these previous referrals. Also,

Levi and Denise have FAILED TO COOPERATE with OKDHS on at least two occasions,

January 2011 and April 2011. Levi and Denise are not providing a safe and stable

home for their children often moving from home to home within a matter of months

or weeks. They have, around April 2011, resided with Carolyn Stewart who is

currently facing felony Child Neglect charges. They have also, in the past and

currently, resided with Tanner Schepp who has significant and violent criminal

history that involves Shooting With Intent to Kill. Tanner also has confirmed

history that involves Domestic Violence which resulted in his current

girlfriend's child being removed from his care. Levi and Denise have told CW in

a past referral (RES 1372157) that Tanner has threatened to kill their children

during a physical altercation that took place in front of their children. The

children told the worker they see their parents punch and hit each other in the

face and on the back when they argue. The children state this makes them sad.

The children also stated they see Levi drink Whiskey on a daily basis and state

he falls down and throws up when he drinks. Levi and Denise are allowing their

children around Kelly Burns who had her own child removed by CW due to domestic

violence between she and Tanner Schepp. Denise states she has allowed Tanner and

Kelly to watch the children unsupervised with their children. Denise and Levi

both stated they are living "here and there" and currently do not have a

home.

3 A

pediatric cardiologist recommended M.A.K.'s heart condition be surgically

repaired.

4 Section

1-4-904 provides, in part:

A. A court shall not terminate the rights of a parent to a child

unless:

1. The child has been adjudicated to be deprived either prior to or

concurrently with a proceeding to terminate parental rights; and

2.

Termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

B. The

court may terminate the rights of a parent to a child based upon the following

legal grounds:

. . .

5. A finding that:

a. the parent has failed to correct the condition which

led to the deprived adjudication of the child, and

b. the parent has been

given at least three (3) months to correct the condition,

. . .

5 We

commend the trial court for submitting separate verdict forms that permitted the

jury to specify the precise conditions it found each parent did not correct with

respect to each child. Separate verdict forms are appropriate when an action is

tried to a jury on two or more separate causes of action. Quarles v.

Panchal , 2011 OK 13, ¶5 , 250 P.3d 320, 322 . In this case,

each verdict form constitutes a general verdict as required by 12 O.S. 2011 §587 because it is a

complete pronouncement on the issue of termination, as opposed to a finding of

facts alone. By including a line for a checkmark beside each of the alleged

conditions, the court directed the jury to make findings as to particular

questions of fact, a procedure approved by 12 O.S. 2011 §588. So long as the

verdict is wholly determinative of the issue tried, special findings of fact do

not deprive the verdict of its generality. Smith v. Gizzi , 1977 OK 91, ¶12 , 564 P.2d 1009, 1013 .

6 The

statute states it is the purpose of the laws relating to children alleged or

found to be deprived to "[m]ake reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the

need for the removal of a child from the home and make reasonable efforts to

return the child to the home unless otherwise prescribed by the Oklahoma

Children's Code.

7 Parents

traveled to Ada from their home in Sparks in rural Lincoln County to visit

Children only four times. For other visits, the foster mother drove Children to

visit Parents, usually meeting them in Shawnee.

8 The

Oklahoma Supreme Court has determined that threatened termination of parental

rights "requires the full panoply of procedural safeguards must be applied to

child deprivation hearings. This includes the right to counsel. Matter of

Chad S., 1978 OK 94, ¶12 , 580 P.2d 983, 985 . That case also

adopted the rationale that child dependency hearings equate to criminal

trials.

9 When an

attorney takes no action on behalf of his client, there is a legal presumption

of prejudice, an exception to the satisfaction of both prongs of the

Strickland requirement. Young v State, 1994 OK CR 84 , ¶9, 902 P.2d 1089,

1090 .

Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document Cite

Name

Level

None Found.

Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite

Name

Level

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Cases

Cite Name Level

1994 OK CR 84 , 902 P.2d 1089 , YOUNG v. STATE Discussed

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases

Cite Name Level

1992 OK CIV APP 89 , 838 P.2d 38 , 63 OBJ 3043, B.M.O., Matter of Discussed

2007 OK CIV APP 97 , 169 P.3d 730 , IN THE MATTER OF S.A. Discussed

2010 OK CIV APP 103 , 242 P.3d 589 , IN THE MATTER OF B.C. Discussed

2011 OK CIV APP 27 , 250 P.3d 343 , IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE IN THE INTEREST OF A.W. and M.W. Discussed

2012 OK CIV APP 32 , 275 P.3d 161 , IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE IN THE INTEREST OF K.P. Discussed

2012 OK CIV APP 65 , 280 P.3d 366 , IN THE MATTER OF R.A. Cited

2013 OK CIV APP 21 , 298 P.3d 544 , IN THE MATTER OF L.S. Discussed at Length

1999 OK CIV APP 32 , 976 P.2d 1098 , 70 OBJ 1455, In the Matter of E.M. Discussed

2000 OK CIV APP 98 , 12 P.3d 478 , 71 OBJ 2398, IN THE MATTER OF K.L.C. Cited

Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Cite Name Level

1990 OK 89 , 801 P.2d 703 , 61 OBJ 2374, D.D.F., Matter of Discussed

2002 OK 83 , 64 P.3d 1080 , IN THE MATTER OF S.B.C. Discussed

2011 OK 13 , 250 P.3d 320 , QUARLES v. PANCHAL Discussed

1977 OK 91 , 564 P.2d 1009 , SMITH v. GIZZI Discussed

1978 OK 94 , 580 P.2d 983 , MATTER OF CHAD S. Discussed

Title 12. Civil Procedure

Cite Name Level

12 O.S. 587 , General or Special Verdict Cited

12 O.S. 588 , General Verdict and Particular Findings Cited