Title: IN THE MATTER OF A.L.F.

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF A.L.F.  IN THE MATTER OF A.L.F. 2010 OK 59 Case Number: 106831 Decided: 07/06/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF A.L.F, N.W.S, AND, J.L.S., ALLEGED DEPRIVED CHILDREN: STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellees, v. JAMES L. SPARKS AND LISA M. SPARKS, Appellants. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION III ¶0 Termination of Parental Rights matter in which the trial court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that parental rights should be terminated as a result of the Parents failure to correct the condition leading to the deprived adjudication. Court of Civil Appeals disagreed and reversed trial court's findings. OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED AND RULING OF TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED Heather J. Russell Cooper, Assistant District Attorney., Ardmore, Oklahoma, for Appellee. Gordon R. Melson, Seminole, Oklahoma, for Appellants. HARGRAVE, J. ¶1 In May 2006, the State of Oklahoma filed a petition to have the children, A.L.F., N.W.S., and J.L.S. adjudicated deprived. The children's parents are James and Lisa Sparks. The State sought adjudication on the grounds that the children did not have proper parental care of guardianship and that the Parents' home was an unfit place for Children due to Parents' neglect and abuse. More specifically, the State alleged: (1) Children were found living in an unsanitary and unhealthy home without proper furnishings for Children: (2) Father had engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with the child A.L.F.; (3) Father had used inappropriate physical discipline with the child A.L.F.; (4) James Sparks abuses alcohol affecting his ability to properly care for his children; (5) Parents have engaged in domestic violence in front of the Children; and (6) Children are at risk of harm if left in the custody of Parents. ¶2 Parents stipulated to the allegations and waived the adjudication hearing. The trial court entered an Order of Adjudication ordering the Children adjudicated wards of the court as deprived. The Department of Human Services filed an individualized service plan with the trial court. In August 2006, the trial court entered an Order of Disposition wherein it ordered: That the parents shall demonstrate that they have corrected the conditions which caused the children to become deprived by, at a minimum abiding by the following standards of conduct, the failure of which may result in the termination of their parental rights: a. Provide a home that is safe stable, an hygienic, with furniture and appliances suitable to meet the basic needs of the children; b. Demonstrate the ability to provide a stable family environment that combine the appropriate support, nutrition, education, protection and nurturing; c. Maintain employment that will provide sufficient income to meet the needs of the parents and the wards; d. Complete a substance abuse assessment approved by said Department and complete such course of substance abuse treatment as may be directed by said Department as a result of said assessment and not use unlawfully or abuse controlled dangerous substances, nor associate with those that do and submit to random testing for use of controlled dangerous substances at the request of said Department; e. Complete a course or courses of counseling approved by said Department designed to teach the following: 1. The impart of improper sexual contact with an adult on a child, the role of a parent to prevent the improper contact and how to avoid that improper contact and demonstrate that they can be put into practice that which they have learned; and 2. the impact of domestic violence by adults on children, how to eliminate domestic violence from relationships and demonstrate that they can put into practice that which they have learned. The trial court also ordered reasonable visitation times between Parents and Children and ordered Parents each to contribute $100.00 per month for Childrens' support. ¶3 In September 2008, pursuant to 10 O.S. 2001 §7006-1.1, the State filed an Application for Termination of Parental Rights seeking termination of Parents' parental rights to N.W.S. and J.L.S., alleging Parents had failed to correct the condition leading to the deprived adjudication (§7006-1.A.15); that Children had been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months (§7006-1.A.15); and that termination was in the best interest of the Children. A.L.F., was the Father's stepdaughter. Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to A.L.F. prior to trial. ¶4 Following a December 2008 Bench trial, the trial court entered two separate orders, terminating each Parent's parental rights to the son, N.W.S. and their daughter J.L.S. At the time of this bench trial N.W.S. was eleven years old and J.L.S. was eight years old. In those orders, the trial court found that the Children's deprived adjudication was caused by or contributed to by the acts or omissions of the Parent; that Parents failed to show the conditions which led to the adjudication of the Children have been corrected, although they have been given more than three months to do so; that the Children have been in foster care for 15 months of the most recent 22 months; and termination of Parents' parental rights is in the best interest of the children. ¶5 Pursuant to ¶6 In proceedings to terminate parental rights, the paramount consideration is the Health, safety or welfare and best interest of the child. 10 O.S.2001 §7006-1.1(A), Renumbered as 10A O.S. § 1-4-904 by Laws 2009, HB 2028, c. 233, § 263, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009. Because the presumption is that the child's best interest lie with family integrity, The State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is served by termination parental rights. In the Matter of C.G. ¶7 After canvassing the record in the instant matter to determine if the trial court's finding rest on the clear-and-convincing standard, we find sufficient evidence exists to terminate Parents' parental rights. Evidence was presented that Mr. Sparks engaged in activity that could be considered sexual abuse on A.L.F., the daughter/step daughter to whom Mrs. Sparks voluntarily relinquished her rights. Mr. Sparks also maintained that he committed no acts of domestic violence, however, both Parents admitted that Mr. Sparks slapped A.L.F. in the face and the D.H.S. worker testified that the slap had broken the child's nose. Mrs. Sparks characterized this slap as a spanking on the face. Although, all parental rights to this child were relinquished prior to the bench trial, these events bear on the question of the fitness of the parents.