Title: IN THE MATTER OF BTW
Citation: 195 P.3d 896, 2008 OK 80
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 16, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF BTW Annotate this Case IN THE MATTER OF BTW 2008 OK 80 195 P.3d 896 Case Number: 105671 Decided: 09/16/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF BTW, Deprived child under the age of eighteen (18) years. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WOODWARD COUNTY ¶0 The appellants, district attorney, the deprived child (BTW/child), and the foster parent, join in the appeal of orders of the district court entered on February 15 and 25, 2008: 1) directing a change of placement from the foster home; 2) ordering a plan of reunification with the mother; and 3) denying the appellants' emergency motion to discontinue visitations with the mother. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion either by ordering continued visitation with the mother, the goal being reunification, or by directing a change of placement from the foster home whose environment does not foster reunification. AFFIRMED. Susan K. Meinders, Office of the District Attorney of Woodward County, Woodward, Oklahoma, for the State of Oklahoma, Jean L. Foard, Carelyn Stuckey Talley, Foard, Talley & Stake, P.L.L.C., Woodward, Oklahoma, for the child, D. Kent Meyers, Harvey D Ellis, Jr., Mary H. Tolbert, Wade Gungoll, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the foster parent, Jami J. Fenner, Lester, Loving & Davies, P.C., Edmond, Oklahoma, for the mother. WATT, J.: ¶1 The appeal ¶2 The record contains facts in support of both sides of the controversy on the visitation and custody issues. Nevertheless, a review of the record and the transcripts reveal substantial evidence in support of the trial court's rulings. Because the trial court is better equipped to determine controversial evidence by its observation of the parties, the witnesses, and their demeanor CONTROVERTED FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 The facts of the cause are highly disputed. Additionally, the record contains at least some evidence to support all arguments made by each of the parties. Finally, the litigation has been long and complex. ¶4 After the child was placed in the mother's ¶5 On April 25, 2005, DHS received information alleging that the child was being neglected. ¶6 Also during June, the circumstances leading up to the instant controversy were set in motion. Realizing that she was having difficulties both mentally and physically after beginning on the seizure medications, the mother sought additional treatment at a facility in Texas. Knowing she would be hospitalized for a period of time, the mother contacted the foster parent whom she met through her attendance at the Assembly of God Church. She informed the foster parent that she was facing an extended hospitalization and that the child's grandmother was unavailable to care for the child due to her husband's illness. Before agreeing to take the child into her home, the foster parent allegedly requested to be appointed as guardian. DHS was notified that the guardianship had been granted as of June 23, 2005. ¶7 Although the mother acknowledges that her illness might frighten her daughter, ¶8 In May of 2006, DHS again became involved with the child when reports of the mother's volatile behavior towards the child, the foster parent and a DHS supervisor were made.20 The child was: adjudicated deprived on July 31, 2006; made a ward of the court; and placed in DHS custody. DHS allowed the child to continue to live with the foster parent. The mother asserts that DHS ignored the fact that the child's grandmother was willing and eligible to take the child into her home when the child was placed in foster care.21 DHS officials contend that because of the volatile nature of the relationship between the mother and the grandmother, the mother had indicated she did not trust BTW to be in the grandmother's home.22 ¶9 On August 31, 2006, the district court entered a disposition order adopting an individual treatment and service plan.23 In December of the same year, DHS sought termination based on allegations that the mother failed to comply with the treatment plan. The mother contends that no evidence existed to support noncompliance. Neither party's position is entirely persuasive.24 ¶10 On June 18, 2007, DHS filed an amended motion to terminate parental rights, alleging that the mother's mental condition would not respond to treatment.25 The following month, the mother filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the cause be dismissed on grounds that the child was not deprived. The trial court overruled the motion. At the end of a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict on August 16, 2007 refusing to terminate the mother's parental rights. ¶11 Following the trial, DHS allowed weekly, one-hour, supervised visits between the mother and the child in its offices. On September 17, 2007, the mother filed a motion to assume full custody of the child or, in the alternative, to have the child's placement moved from the foster parent. The trial court held two permanency/review hearings, one on October 26, 2007 and a second on February 11, 2008. ¶12 At the first hearing, the guardian ad litem again recommended that the child be removed from the foster parent's home because of the interference in the relationship between BTW and her mother.26 Contra to this opinion, the DHS caseworker believed the child should stay in placement with the foster parent and that a change in custody would be traumatic to the child.27 Although the caseworker characterized the mother-child relationship as "fragile," she indicated the relationship should be fostered.28 Nevertheless, she believed that visitation should continue to be supervised because of heated exchanges among BTW, the mother, and the grandmother.29 At the time of the hearing, the mother was regularly attending her appointments with doctors and therapists and had become employed.30 Nevertheless, DHS progress reports indicate the mother was without counseling from June 15, 2006 until January 5, 2007.31 ¶14 During the interim between the first and second review hearings, increased visitation did occur but DHS did not find alternative placement for the child. For the first time, at the second review hearing, the foster parent intervened. DHS requested that the child remain in out-of-home placement and that reunification efforts be terminated. The request was based on testimony that the child's grades were dropping and that she was emotionally distraught and exhibited high levels of stress and anxiety along with physical complaints ranging from the inability to sleep to headaches and stomachaches. ¶15 By the time of the second review hearing, the mother's medication had been reduced to a single prescription for depression. She was no longer working, but she was attending regular counseling sessions. Nevertheless, she admitted that the strain of continuing with DHS supervision and court involvement contributed to an increase in anxiety, sleeplessness, head and stomach aches along with nausea.42 When the child was called to testify, she reiterated that she did not want visitations to continue because she was fearful when staying with her mother and she felt that her mother treated her poorly. BTW gave examples of her mother having yelled and cussed at her and having patted her on the bottom. She was also upset about changing church congregations.43 Nevertheless, when questioned by the trial judge, the child admitted there were times she enjoyed with her mother.44 ¶17 On April 18, 2008, the Court assumed original jurisdiction and issued a writ prohibiting the respondent judge and any other judicial officer in Woodward County from proceeding further in the cause. We also retained the cause on our own motion and ordered the stay to remain in place pending resolution on appeal. In response to the request for clarification, we issued a subsequent order on May 12, 2008, which allowed the motion to discontinue visitation to be considered in the district court and leaving all other aspects of the April 18th order unaltered. ¶18 No abuse of discretion occurred either in the ordering of continued visitation with a goal of reunification or in the direction to change placement. ¶19 The appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion both by ordering continued visitation with a plan towards reunification and by requiring a change of placement from the foster home. The mother asserts that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings. Although we recognize that the facts have been hotly contested and that a wide range of evidence has been presented, we agree with the mother's contentions. The only basis upon which we could hold that the trial court erred in ordering continued visitation with a goal of reunification or in the direction to change placement would be to determine that the trial court was not entitled to reject conclusions of some witnesses and accept those of others. This we may not do. ¶21 Although it is undisputed that the mother has a long history of mental illness, there is evidence in the record that until she was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and began taking medications for the condition, she had little difficulty parenting and the child was thriving in her care. There is evidence both to indicate that the mother may have physically abused the child by pulling out hair follicles and to refute the same. ¶22 Evidence in the record supports the mother's contentions that the foster parent has not promoted reunification. CONCLUSION ¶25 There are no easy answers in this cause and no clear cut lines of demarcation. To date, this mother and daughter have been separated for over three years and each have much to accomplish if reunification is to be successful. ¶26 There is conflicting evidence on the crucial issue of the best interests of the child. Nevertheless, discretion is abused, so as to warrant reversal, when a trial judge makes a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, against reason and the evidence.62 A decision reviewed on appeal is presumed correct unless the contrary is shown by the record.63 Based on our examination of the record and considering the totality of the testimony and evidence, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering visitation64 with a view towards reunification or in directing a change in placement. Therefore, we uphold the trial court's orders. AFFIRMED. EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, WATT, TAYLOR, COLBERT, REIF, JJ. - concur. WINCHESTER, C.J. and KAUGER, J. - dissent. FOOT