Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a statute governing foster-parent objections to removal did not eliminate the trial court's duty to determine a child's best interests. Because the foster parents had not been allowed to participate fully or present relevant evidence in the removal proceeding, the court assumed original jurisdiction and granted writs requiring another hearing, but declined to order the child's return pending that hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 10 O.S. Supp. 2002 § 7208 divested the trial court of its duty to determine the child's best interests in a proceeding to move the child from one foster home to another.
- Whether, under the circumstances, the Sauls and the Hagermans were entitled to participate fully in the removal proceeding and present testimony concerning the child's best interests.
- Whether the trial court could approve the proposed sibling placement without hearing evidence from the foster parents and the Department of Human Services caseworkers concerning the child's best interests and the effects of the move.
Holdings
- Section 7208 does not divest the trial court of its duty to determine the child's best interests when the Department of Human Services seeks to move a child from one foster home to another.
- Under the circumstances presented, both foster families had to be allowed to fully participate in the proceeding concerning B.D.M.'s removal, including the opportunity to present testimony.
- The goal of placing siblings together does not, by itself, establish that a proposed placement is in the child's best interests; the trial court must determine the best interests of each sibling based on evidence.
Key quotations
“We hold that 10 O.S. Supp.2002 § 7208[1] does not divest the trial court of its duty to determine the child's best interests in a removal proceeding.” (349)
“The trial court's function is not to rubber stamp a DHS placement plan.” (355)
“Accordingly, another hearing is required in which the foster parents must be allowed to participate.” (356)
Factual background
B.D.M. was removed from her mother at birth and initially placed with the Hagermans, who were caring for B.D.M.'s older half-sister. The Sauls provided intermittent respite care and became certified foster parents while B.D.M. was in their care; by the time of the challenged removal, the child had spent approximately four months with each family. After previously approving continued placement with the Sauls and an overseas family vacation, the Department of Human Services abruptly notified them that B.D.M. would be moved to the Hagermans to facilitate sibling placement. At the removal hearing, the trial court heard no testimony from either foster family or the relevant caseworkers and received no evidence concerning the effects of the move on the child.
Procedural history
B.D.M. was removed from her biological mother and placed first with the Hagermans and later with the Sauls. After the Department of Human Services notified the Sauls that the child would be moved back to the Hagermans, the trial court held a hearing but heard no testimony from the foster parents or the caseworkers and approved the removal. The Sauls petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for emergency relief and writs. The court assumed original jurisdiction, granted writs in part, and ordered another hearing at which the foster parents could participate and present testimony.
Remand instructions
The trial court must conduct another prompt hearing concerning B.D.M.'s removal and allow the foster parents to participate and present testimony. The Supreme Court declined to require that B.D.M. be returned to the Sauls pending the new hearing.