In re KW
| Decision Date | 02 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 93,843.,93,843. |
| Citation | 2000 OK CIV APP 84,10 P.3d 244 |
| Parties | In The Matter of: K.W. and V.W., alleged deprived children, Karyn Webb, Appellant, v. State of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
C. Rabon Martin, Charles M. Fox, James M. Caputo, Martin & Associates, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellant.
Tim Harris, District Attorney, C. Kevin Morrison, Assistant District Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
Michelle Huffman, Assistant Public Defender, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For the Children.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.
¶ 1 Karyn Webb (Mother) appeals a trial court order finding five-year old V.W. and five-month old K.W. to be deprived. The trial court made a similar finding as to the children's father, but he does not join in this appeal. As her sole basis for reversal, Mother argues the trial court should have granted her request to stay the juvenile proceedings while related criminal charges were pending against her. Under the circumstances presented in this record, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying Mother's request to stay the proceedings, and we affirm the trial court's order.
¶ 2 At the outset, we reject a suggestion made by the State of Oklahoma and the attorney for the children that the case is moot because the children have now been returned to the physical custody of Mother.1 Even this argument acknowledges that the case remains pending and that the children are still wards of the court. Under these circumstances the case is not moot, and we must address Mother's arguments.
¶ 3 The trial court ordered the children to be taken into emergency protective custody based upon an affidavit setting forth facts showing that Mother was implicated in the suspected "shaken baby syndrome" abuse suffered by a 19-month old child for whom she was caring.2 Mother was also charged with a crime involving the alleged abuse of that child. After taking the children into custody, the social workers discovered additional information which they believed raised additional questions concerning the safety of Mother's own children, V.W. and K.W., and a petition was filed alleging the children were deprived.
¶ 4 Prior to the hearing on the petition, Mother filed a Request for Stay of Proceedings, asking that the adjudication hearing be stayed until the criminal case was resolved because Mother might be forced to assert her constitutional right against self-incrimination in the juvenile proceedings, impairing her ability to defend the juvenile case. The trial court denied that request. Subsequently, Mother stipulated to what the State's evidence would show at trial and that such evidence would be sufficient to determine the children to be deprived. Based upon that stipulation, the trial court entered an order finding the children to be deprived.
¶ 5 Mother appears to concede that United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 763, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970), allows simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings which may require the criminal defendant to assert the constitutional right against self-incrimination in the civil proceeding. However, according to Mother, her constitutionally-protected interest in raising her children dictated that she not be placed in the position of giving up her right against self-incrimination so that she could adequately defend the juvenile case.
¶ 6 State argues that Mother has waived any right to question the trial court's order by entering into the stipulation on which it was based. This argument fails to properly analyze the effect of the stipulation. Mother did not stipulate that her children were deprived and waived no right to complain on appeal of the denial of her stay request. She merely agreed that the evidence which State had would be that produced at the preliminary hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Day v. State
...OK CIV APP 110, ¶¶ 5–9, 144 P.3d 202, 203;In re T.H., 2005 OK CIV APP 5, ¶ 10, 105 P.3d 354, 356;In re K.W., 2000 OK CIV APP 84, ¶ 3, 10 P.3d 244, 245. The Oklahoma Supreme Court accepted it in In re S.B.C., 2002 OK 83, ¶ 3, 64 P.3d 1080, 1081. ¶ 8 Day claims that, even if we previously acc......
- Smith v. Dinwiddie
-
STATE EX REL. SA
...criminal prosecutions. See In re V.A., 105 Misc.2d 254, 432 N.Y.S.2d 137, 142 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.1980); In re K.W., 2000 OK Civ App 84, ¶¶ 7-9, 10 P.3d 244. Therefore, Mother's due process rights are not violated by multiple or simultaneous B. Fifth Amendment ¶ 22 Mother also contends the exercise......
-
In re P.F.
...See In re H.J., 1993 OK CIV APP 72, ¶ 14, 854 P.2d 381, 383, (Rapp, P.J. concurring); see also, In re K.W., 2000 OK CIV APP 84, ¶ 7, 10 P.3d 244, 245-46 (treating a deprived child hearing as a civil case). The goals of the juvenile court proceeding are to correct parental behavior and prote......