Case Title: In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87435

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K.  In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K. 1997 OK 69 940 P.2d 216 68 OBJ 1861 Case Number: 87435 Decided: 05/20/1997 Mandate Issued: 06/19/1997 Supreme Court of Oklahoma In the Matter of the Adoption of K.D.K., DEANNA HAMES, Appellant, v. WILMA and JOHNNY ROBERTS, Appellees APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA, LARRY OAKES, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 The appellees, Wilma and Johnny Roberts, petitioned to adopt K.D.K., without the consent of the mother, who is the appellant, Deanna Hames, due to her failure to pay support for a period of twelve months immediately preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. The trial court granted the petition and terminated the parental rights of the mother. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Deanna Hames, Colcord, Oklahoma, Pro Se Appellant, Tim K. Baker, BAKER & BAKER, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, For Appellees. Alma Wilson, Justice [940 P.2d 217] ¶1 K.D.K. was born out of wedlock to Deanna Hames ¶2 On remand from the Court of Civil Appeals, the Roberts' petition to adopt K.D.K. without Hames' consent was scheduled for another hearing on March 7, 1996. At that hearing, Hames asked that an independent attorney be appointed to represent her minor child, K.D.K., arguing that it is fundamental error not to appoint independent counsel for a child at a hearing to determine the child's eligibility to be adopted without the mother's consent. The trial court refused to appoint counsel for the child and proceeded to retry the adoption petition. On April 15, 1996, the trial court entered its decree of adoption without parental consent. Hames timely filed a petition in error on May 8, 1996. She also filed a motion to stay the effectiveness of the adoption decree during the pendency of the appeal. On June 19, 1996, this Court denied the motion to stay, but ordered the appeal accelerated and retained the case. ¶3 This appeal presents a single issue: Whether the trial court committed fundamental error in refusing to appoint an independent counsel for K.D.K. at the hearing on the Roberts' petition to adopt K.D.K. without Hames' consent. We hold that the trial court's failure to appoint independent counsel to represent the minor child, K.D.K., at the hearing to determine eligibility for adoption without the parental consent under 10 O.S.1991, §60.6(2), constitutes fundamental error and we therefore reverse the April 15, 1996, decree of adoption. ¶4 In Matter of T.M.H., 613 P.2d 468 (Okla. 1980), this Court held that a child has a constitutional right to counsel in a proceeding initiated by the state for the termination of parental rights. Matter of the Guardianship of S.A.W., 856 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1993), extended the teaching of Matter of T.M.H., 613 P.2d 468 (Okla. 1980) to proceedings initiated by a private party for termination of [940 P.2d 218] parental rights. A petition for adoption filed under 10 O.S.1991, §§60.1, et seq., which results in termination of parental rights when the petition is granted, is just such an occasion. ¶5 In S.A.W. we observed that if a child is not represented by independent counsel, the child is caught in the middle while attorneys for the parties argue from the viewpoints of their clients. In contrast, an attorney representing the child can present testimony and cross-examine as an independent advocate for the best interests of the child. DISTRICT COURT DECREE OF ADOPTION REVERSED; AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, WILSON, and WATT, JJ., concur. HODGES, J., dissents. FOOT