In re C.D.P.F., No. 106,193.

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtWINCHESTER J
PartiesIn the Matter of C.D.P.F., an alleged deprived child. JoAnna Daniels, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 106,193.
Decision Date16 November 2010
243 P.3d 21
2010 OK 81


In the Matter of C.D.P.F., an alleged deprived child.
JoAnna Daniels, Appellant,
v.
State of Oklahoma, Appellee.


No. 106,193.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 16, 2010.

243 P.3d 22

ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION 4.

¶ 0 After trial for termination of Mother's parental rights, a jury found clear and convincing evidence that the Mother, Joanna Daniels, failed to correct conditions which led to the deprived adjudication of C.D.P.F. The trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury's findings and terminated Mother's parental rights. A divided Division IV of the Court of Civil Appeals disagreed and reversed the trial court's findings.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

Eric R. Jones, Eric R. Jones Law Office, Ardmore, OK, for Appellant.

Craig Ladd, District Attorney, and Heather J. Russell Cooper, Assistant District Attorney, Ardmore, OK, for Appellee.

WINCHESTER J.

¶ 1 This appeal arises from a jury trial that culminated in a judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother, JoAnna Daniels, to her minor daughter C.D.P.F. On June 11, 2007, while searching a home for suspected drug use, DHS and local police found C.D.P.F., a then nine month old infant, crying in the home. A female resident informed the DHS worker that the infant's mother was not in the home but had been staying there and had left the infant there to run an errand. Mother returned to the house two hours later. A search of the car Mother was driving, as well as her purse, both yielded drug substances. Mother was arrested for

243 P.3d 23
felony possession of methamphetamines and C.D.P.F. was taken into DHS custody.1 Mother failed a drug test at this time.

¶ 2 The proceedings against Mother were initiated by the State on June 18, 2007, with a petition to adjudicate C.D.P.F. as a deprived child. The petition alleged, inter alia, that Mother could not properly provide a safe, stable home because she was homeless; that Mother used illegal drugs; that Mother left the child with inappropriate caregivers; and that the parents engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the child.2 The trial court found C.D.P.F. to be deprived and at a disposition hearing on July 26, 2007, the trial court provided Mother with a list of conditions she had to complete to have C.D.P.F. returned to her custody. Among the court-ordered conditions were that Mother must complete a substance abuse treatment program, that she must not use drugs and that she submit to random drug tests at the request of DHS. 3

¶ 3 During the ensuing months, Mother failed two additional tests and refused several others. Mother denied the use of drugs and testified she believed the results were false positives. There was conflicting evidence regarding Mother's attendance at an out-patient substance abuse program; however, Mother admitted that after testing positive in January 2008, a program counselor indicated to her that she needed to seek in-patient therapy. Mother's DHS workers also requested Mother attend an in-patient treatment program. Mother refused, continuing to deny drug use and indicating that if she were to attend in-patient treatment she would lose her rental residence. Mother claims to have paid for her own hair follicle drug tests, one of which came back positive and a subsequent test which was negative.

¶ 4 On May 15, 2008, the State sought to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds that Mother had failed to correct the conditions which led to the adjudication of C.D.P.F. as deprived, even though Mother had been given in excess of three (3) months to correct the conditions. The State also urged the termination was in the child's best interests. A jury trial was held and the jury rendered a verdict for termination. On July 24, 2008,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Andrews v. McCall, Case Number: 111905
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 14, 2014
    ...rights, this Court will review the record for clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision to terminate. In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶6, 243 P.3d 21; In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶¶5-7, 64 P.3d 1080. This Court must canvass the record to determine whether the evidence is such that ......
  • Andrews v. McCall (In re Adoption of K.P.M.A.), 111,905.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 14, 2014
    ...rights, this Court will review the record for clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision to terminate. In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶ 6, 243 P.3d 21 ; In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶¶ 5–7, 64 P.3d 1080. This Court must canvass the record to determine whether the evidence is such th......
  • Mireles v. State (In re L.M.), No. 109,290.
    • United States
    • Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 30, 2012
    ...must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is served by the termination of parental rights.” In re C.D.P.F, 2010 OK 81, ¶ 5, 243 P.3d 21, 23. This standard of proof “balances the parents' fundamental freedom from family disruption with the state's duty to prot......
  • Tosto v. State (In re H.R.T.), No. 111,680.
    • United States
    • Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 18, 2013
    ...for termination and that HRT's best interest was served by the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights.3 See In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶ 5, 243 P.3d 21, 23 ("In parental termination cases, the State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Andrews v. McCall, Case Number: 111905
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 14, 2014
    ...rights, this Court will review the record for clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision to terminate. In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶6, 243 P.3d 21; In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶¶5-7, 64 P.3d 1080. This Court must canvass the record to determine whether the evidence is such that ......
  • Andrews v. McCall (In re Adoption of K.P.M.A.), 111,905.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 14, 2014
    ...rights, this Court will review the record for clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision to terminate. In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶ 6, 243 P.3d 21 ; In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶¶ 5–7, 64 P.3d 1080. This Court must canvass the record to determine whether the evidence is such th......
  • Mireles v. State (In re L.M.), No. 109,290.
    • United States
    • Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • March 30, 2012
    ...must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is served by the termination of parental rights.” In re C.D.P.F, 2010 OK 81, ¶ 5, 243 P.3d 21, 23. This standard of proof “balances the parents' fundamental freedom from family disruption with the state's duty to prot......
  • Tosto v. State (In re H.R.T.), No. 111,680.
    • United States
    • Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 18, 2013
    ...for termination and that HRT's best interest was served by the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights.3 See In re C.D.P.F., 2010 OK 81, ¶ 5, 243 P.3d 21, 23 ("In parental termination cases, the State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT