Case Title: SKRAPKA v. BONNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 105413

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2008-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
SKRAPKA v. BONNER  SKRAPKA v. BONNER 2008 OK 30 187 P.3d 202 Case Number: 105413 Decided: 04/01/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RAYMOND AND JANICE SKRAPKA, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE STEPHEN BONNER, and the STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondents. APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION Honorable Stephen Bonner, Trial Judge ¶0 The respondent, the Department of Human Services (DHS) approved an aunt and uncle of three children as an acceptable placement after their mother was accused of child abuse. However, rather than place the children together with the aunt and uncle, DHS placed one child with a family member outside of his school district and placed the other two children with their biological father, Westley Boggs (Boggs). Boggs was the non-custodial parent of two of the children and had been awarded visitation in his divorce from their mother a few months earlier. The divorce decree prohibited Boggs' visitation from occurring when his son from another relationship was present because the son sexually abused the children. Despite the divorce decree, and despite DHS's stipulation that the sexual abuse occurred, the children were placed with Boggs in the same house with the son who had sexually abused them. When review of the children's placement came before the trial court, the aunt and uncle sought to intervene to present evidence that the current placement was not in the children's best interests. The trial court denied the motion to intervene. The aunt and uncle filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and requested a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Prohibition. We hold that under the facts of this cause, a proper determination of the children's best interests requires that the aunt and uncle be allowed to participate in the review proceedings. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRITS GRANTED IN PART. M. Eileen Echols, David W. Echols, Amy L. Howe, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners. Jonna Geitgey, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent, Department of Human Services. Meredith Tipton, Assistant District Attorney, Norman, Oklahoma, for Respondent, Trial Judge. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The issue presented is whether an aunt and uncle have any right whatsoever to participate in a review proceeding for placement of nieces and a nephew when they have never had custody of the children, have never acted in loco parentis, and are not persons guaranteed to be allowed to intervene pursuant to 10 O.S. Supp. 2002 §7003-7.1(C). FACTS ¶2 Stacy Boggs (mother) is the biological mother of a boy, N.M.R, (boy) and two girls, K.M.B. and H.J.B. (girls). Melvin Whitaker (Whitaker) is the biological father of the boy, and Westley Boggs (father) is the biological father of both girls. The age of the boy is unclear from the record, but the girls are ages two and six. On August 16, 2007, a trial judge in Oklahoma County entered an order granting the mother a divorce from the father. The mother was awarded custody of her two daughters and the father was awarded standard visitation. The order provides that the father's visitation "shall be opposite of" the father's "other child." The age of the "other child" is not revealed in the record. ¶3 According to the petitioners, Raymond and Janice Skrapka, the maternal aunt and uncle of the boy and girls (aunt and uncle), there were allegations raised during the divorce that the father's son from a previous marriage had molested the boy and one of the girls, which explains the language in the divorce decree limiting visitation to when the father's son from a previous marriage was absent. The attorney for the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) admits that the molestation occurred. ¶4 According to the aunt and uncle, as of August 23, 2007, Whitaker and the mother were accused of abusing the boy. On August 24, 2007, DHS took all three children into custody. In September of 2007, child abuse charges were filed in Cleveland County Court against Whitaker and the mother. DHS evaluated the home of the aunt and uncle, and they were approved as an acceptable placement for the children. The aunt and uncle purchased additional beds, bedding, and clothing for the children and began converting their garage into an additional bedroom to make room for the children. ¶5 However, rather than placing all three children together with the aunt and uncle, DHS decided to separate them. It placed the boy with a family member outside of his school district and placed the girls with their non-custodial father who also apparently had custody of his son who was accused of molesting one of the girls. The Honorable Stephen Bonner, a trial judge in Cleveland County, was reviewing the DHS placement of the children when, on December 7, 2007, the aunt and uncle filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. ¶6 The aunt and uncle argued that they were entitled to be considered by the court for an award of custody pursuant ¶7 On December 28, 2007, the aunt and uncle filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition in this Court. They seek a Writ of Mandamus to require the trial court to enforce the divorce decree or in the alternative, to hear evidence as to why the placement is contrary to the children's best interests. They request that we issue a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit DHS from violating the divorce decree or in the alternative to require DHS to show cause as to why the prior order is being ignored. ¶8 UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED, A PROPER DETERMINATION OF THE CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS REQUIRES THAT THE AUNT AND UNCLE BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. ¶9 DHS argues that the placement it has made for the children is in the children's best interests and the aunt and uncle have no right to intervene and participate in the proceedings. DHS offers no explanation as to why the aunt and uncle would not be a suitable placement choice. Rather, it insists that it was entitled to assess the situation and that it was entitled to place the girls with their non-custodial natural father and the boy with another relative. The aunt and uncle argue that they have a due process right to be heard and present evidence regarding the allegations of sexual abuse when the trial court reviews the DHS placement of their nieces and nephew because, pursuant to ¶10 It appears from the record that the trial court was under some misapprehension about the nature of a consent decree. ¶11 Although a consent judgment is not a judicial determination of the rights of the parties, it acquires the status of a judgment through the judge's approval of the pre-existing agreement of the parties. ¶12 Intervention in an action is controlled by ¶13 Title 10 O.S. Supp. 2002 §7003-7.1(C) provides persons who have legal custody of a child pursuant to an order of the court, the right to intervene in care and custody proceedings regarding the child. ¶14 Saul involved a trial court's review of a DHS decision to remove a foster child from one foster home and place the child in another. Neither set of foster parents had kept the child for at least six months as required by ¶15 The rationale behind our decision in Saul is really quite simple. It began with the mandate that the trial court, when reviewing DHS decisions, determines whether DHS placement was in the child's best interest. Next, it recognized that built into the Oklahoma Children's Code, ¶16 In Saul, central to DHS's argument regarding its placement decision was that it was required to attempt to keep siblings together. Here, DHS has taken the opposite approach by separating the children and refusing to place them together with relatives who want them. Nevertheless, the children's aunt and uncle are seeking participation in the review of DHS's placement of the children. The rationale of Saul is even more applicable when family members are seeking participation. ¶17 Courts have a duty to guard with jealous care the interests of minors and to protect infants' rights. ¶18 The Legislative goal of preserving family ties whenever possible is evident throughout our statutes governing children. Grandparents are given visitation rights, ¶19 The Oklahoma Children's Code, 10 O.S. 2001 §7001-1.1 et seq., is to be liberally construed to carry out its purposes, which include unifying and strengthening family ties whenever possible in children's best interest and for the health and safety of children. ¶20 Here, two of the children were separated from a third child. Two of the children were placed with their biological, non-custodial father. The health and safety of the children has been called into question by responsible, adult relatives of the children. ¶21 By examining the Oklahoma Children's Code as a whole, and other statutes relating to children, as well as the mandates of the Legislature to both DHS and to the trial courts, it becomes clear that at the very least, the aunt and uncle have a statutorily recognized interest in the proceeding such that due process requires that they be allowed to intervene. The trial court erred in not allowing the intervention under the facts of this cause. We realize of course, that a child's best interest is presumed to be served by placement with a natural parent, but that presumption may be overcome when a parent is unfit or when the child's welfare is in jeopardy. CONCLUSION ¶22 DHS's reliance on a recent amendment to 10 O.S. Supp. 2007 §7003-6.2 which provides that the trial court may not direct DHS to place a child in a specific home or placement is misplaced. ¶22 The statutory framework concerning children clearly includes and requires attempts to involve family members and attempts to keep children together with family members. So much so, that family members, such as the aunt and uncle here, would be denied due process if they were not allowed to participate in this proceeding to protect their interest in the matter-- an interest which has been statutorily recognized. A Writ of Mandamus is granted in part and the trial court is ordered to: 1) hold a hearing and allow the aunt and uncle to intervene to present evidence regarding whether the children's placement serves their best interests; and 2) to require DHS to show cause as to why it ignored the divorce decree and placed the children in direct contravention of it. A Writ of Prohibition is granted in part to prohibit the trial court from proceeding any further in the matter without allowing the aunt and uncle to participate. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; WRITS GRANTED IN PART. EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WATT, TAYLOR, COLBERT, REIF, JJ., concur. WINCHESTER, C.J., OPALA, J., concur in result. FOOT