Opinion ID: 2380270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts and Proceedings Following BTW I

Text: ¶ 8 Before mandate issued in BTW I, [17] DHS, the child, and foster parent (collectively to be known here as appellees or state) filed an emergency motion to discontinue visitation and request that disclosures of the court's opinion to the child be limited. [18] This motion was bottomed on a 3 October 2008 report provided by the child's counselor who recommended that visitation with the mother be discontinued because of the child's increased anxiety and deterioration. [19] He also opined to the child's attorney that informing BTW of the court's decision would be harmful to the child. [20] The parties further disagreed on visitation and on which order controlled during this period. [21] Mother sought a contempt citation against DHS, alleging the latter failed to obey the order affirmed by this court. [22] ¶ 9 The trial judge set 25 November for a regular review hearing and to entertain: (1) the state's emergency motion to discontinue visitation and (2) its earlier motion pursuant to 10 O.S. § 7003-4.6(A). The trial judge denied the movants' latter motion sans hearing. [23] On 9 February, following a three-day hearing, he ordered (1) the child to remain in the care of the foster parent (2) supervised visitation for mother and child and (3) a change in permanency plan from being promotive of reunification to long-term out-of-home placement. The mother appeals from this order.