Martinez-Mendoza v. State (In re C.M.)

432 P.3d 763 (Okla. 2018) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 4, 2018

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights to three children. The Court held that DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the foster-care-duration statute, and that the mother's trial counsel was effective. The Court remanded for permanency proceedings.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Darby, J.; Combs, C.J.; Kauger, J.; Winchester, J.; Edmondson, J.; Colbert, J.; Reif, J.; Wyrick, J.; Gurich, V.C.J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
December 4, 2018
Procedural posture
Mother appealed from a Tulsa County District Court order terminating her parental rights to three children after a jury found termination justified under 10A O.S.Supp. 2013, § 1-4-904(B)(15).
Standard of review
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination de novo, determining whether the record contained clear and convincing evidence. It reviewed procedural due process and ineffective-assistance claims de novo and reviewed the district court's reasonable-efforts determination for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Mother v. State of Oklahoma
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

termination of parental rightsfamily law procedureappellate procedureevidencestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

family lawtermination of parental rightsappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother with the children despite not providing visitation.
  2. Whether the State presented clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of Mother's parental rights under 10A O.S.Supp. 2013, § 1-4-904(B)(15), including that termination was in the children's best interests.
  3. Whether Mother's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly failing to object to hearsay, irrelevant evidence, and improper opinion testimony.

Holdings

  1. DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that reasonable efforts had failed.
  2. The State presented clear and convincing evidence that the statutory ground for termination under § 1-4-904(B)(15) was satisfied and that termination was in the children's best interests.
  3. Mother failed to establish either deficient performance or resulting prejudice, so her ineffective-assistance claim did not warrant reversal.

Key quotations

If the court determines that reunification services are appropriate for the child and a parent, the court shall allow reasonable visitation with the parent or legal guardian from whose custody the child was removed, unless visitation is not in the best interest of the child, taking into consideration: (767)
Counsel's strategic choices were within the range of professionally reasonable judgment. (771)

Factual background

DHS removed R.M., C.M., and E.M. from Mother's custody after Mother, while highly intoxicated, was arrested for choking R.M. The children were adjudicated deprived, and Mother was given an individualized service plan addressing neglect, physical abuse, exposure to substance abuse, and failure to provide a safe and stable home. Although Mother participated in services and requested visitation, the children consistently expressed intense fear of Mother and refused contact; the evidence attributed their fear to prior abuse and concluded that visitation would likely traumatize them. The children remained in foster care for more than the statutory fifteen-of-twenty-two-month period.

Procedural history

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services removed the children from Mother's custody in August 2013, and the Tulsa County District Court adjudicated them deprived after Mother stipulated to the allegations. DHS imposed an individualized service plan, and the district court later found that reasonable reunification efforts had failed and changed the permanency plan to adoption. Following a 2016 jury trial, the jury recommended termination of Mother's parental rights; the district court entered a formal termination order on September 21, 2017. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed and remanded for permanency proceedings.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the district court for permanency proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…