Title: IN THE MATTER OF C.D.P.F.
Citation: 2010 OK 81
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 16, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF C.D.P.F. Annotate this Case IN THE MATTER OF C.D.P.F. 2010 OK 81 Case Number: 106193 Decided: 11/16/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. IN THE MATTER OF C.D.P.F., an alleged deprived child, JOANNA DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION IV ¶0 After trial for termination of Mother's parental rights, a jury found clear and convincing evidence that the Mother, Joanna Daniels, failed to correct conditions which led to the deprived adjudication of C.D.P.F. The trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury's findings and terminated Mother's parental rights. A divided Division IV of the Court of Civil Appeals disagreed and reversed the trial court's findings. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. Eric R. Jones, ERIC R. JONES LAW OFFICE, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for Appellant. Craig Ladd, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, and Heather J. Russell Cooper, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Ardmore, Oklahoma, for Appellee. WINCHESTER J., ¶1 This appeal arises from a jury trial that culminated in a judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother, JoAnna Daniels, to her minor daughter C.D.P.F. On June 11, 2007, while searching a home for suspected drug use, DHS and local police found C.D.P.F., a then nine month old infant, crying in the home. A female resident informed the DHS worker that the infant's mother was not in the home but had been staying there and had left the infant there to run an errand. Mother returned to the house two hours later. A search of the car Mother was driving, as well as her purse, both yielded drug substances. Mother was arrested for felony possession of methamphetamines and C.D.P.F was taken into DHS custody. ¶2 The proceedings against Mother were initiated by the State on June 18, 2007, with a petition to adjudicate C.D.P.F. as a deprived child. The petition alleged, inter alia, that Mother could not properly provide a safe, stable home because she was homeless; that Mother used illegal drugs; that Mother left the child with inappropriate caregivers; and that the parents engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the child. ¶3 During the ensuing months, Mother failed two additional tests and refused several others. Mother denied the use of drugs and testified she believed the results were false positives. There was conflicting evidence regarding Mother's attendance at an out-patient substance abuse program; however, Mother admitted that after testing positive in January 2008, a program counselor indicated to her that she needed to seek in-patient therapy. Mother's DHS workers also requested Mother attend an in-patient treatment program. Mother refused, continuing to deny drug use and indicating that if she were to attend in-patient treatment she would lose her rental residence. Mother claims to have paid for her own hair follicle drug tests, one of which came back positive and a subsequent test which was negative. ¶4 On May 15, 2008, the State sought to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds that Mother had failed to correct the conditions which led to the adjudication of C.D.P.F. as deprived, even though Mother had been given in excess of three (3) months to correct the conditions. The State also urged the termination was in the child's best interests. A jury trial was held and the jury rendered a verdict for termination. On July 24, 2008, the trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and Mother appealed this ruling. A divided Division IV of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the finding of the trial court and certiorari was granted to review their opinion. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5 In parental termination cases, the State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the child's best interest is served by the termination of parental rights. In the Matter of C.G., ¶6 Likewise, our review on appeal must find the presence of clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision. In the Matter of S.B.C., ANALYSIS ¶7 Mother's lone argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of C.D.P.F. Specifically, Mother claims the State failed to prove that she did not correct the condition leading to the deprived adjudication, in particular, the claim that she used drugs. ¶8 We find Mother's argument unpersuasive. The jury heard extensive testimony and received considerable other evidence that would have allowed them to make an informed determination on the question of whether termination was in the best interest of the child. The State presented evidence that Mother failed no less than three drug tests and refused countless other drug tests and that, because of this failure, Mother's driver's license had been revoked. The State further offered evidence that Mother failed to complete domestic violence counseling as well as the substance abuse treatment program ordered by the trial court. ¶9 Despite multiple positive drug tests, Mother maintains she did not use drugs. She claims the test results were false positives and even claimed to have paid for independent testing which resulted in one positive and one negative test. Mother argues DHS worked against her by urging her to do inpatient substance abuse treatment when to do so, she claims, would have caused her to lose her rental residence. A DHS worker testified that after one of Mother's positive test results Mother told her that she had accidentally ingested "blue pills" that she later learned contained methamphetamines. After another positive test result, a different DHS worker testified that Mother informed her that she must have tested positive as a result of licking her fingers after cleaning out a car where her relatives had used meth. ¶10 In Mother's favor, a surprise visit by the CASA worker indicated no evidence of drug use visible in the home. Mother also testified that she has two grown children who are professionally employed and an older teenage son who was a 4.0 student. ¶11 Although the State presented clear and convincing evidence of a drug problem, Mother refuses to admit any problem and refuses to seek the court-ordered help necessary to avoid the termination of her parental rights to C.D.P.F. The State met its burden at trial and a jury, after evaluating Mother's credibility first-hand, recommended the termination of Mother's parental rights. The trial court did not err in issuing the order of termination. CONCLUSION ¶12 After canvassing the record in the instant matter to determine if the trial court's findings rest on the clear and convincing standard, we find sufficient evidence exists to terminate Mother's parental rights. The verdict of the jury and the trial court's subsequent judgment are affirmed. OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED AND THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. CONCUR: EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, REIF, JJ.