Opinion ID: 2380270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts and Procedure Leading to BTW I

Text: ¶ 3 The mother (appellant in today's cause) adopted BTW in 1999. [3] In June 2005 the mother recognized that her physical and mental abilities to function were deteriorating and that she would need hospitalization. She sought care for BTW from the individual who currently serves as the foster mother. [4] Upon her return home from the hospital, mother alleged the foster mother permitted her only limited supervised visits with BTW. In response to reports of the mother's volatile behavior toward the foster mother, BTW, and a Department of Human Services (DHS) employee, DHS became involved. In May 2006 the child was adjudicated deprived and placed in DHS custody. The agency continued the child's placement with its foster mother. In August 2007, DHS unsuccessfully sought to terminate the mother's parental rights. [5] ¶ 4 Two permanency/review hearings were held. In October 2007, following the first hearing, the trial judge ordered that a different placement be found for the child, all parties to work toward a permanency plan for the child's reunification with her mother and increased visitation with a view to allowing weekend visitations in the mother's home within thirty days. [6] ¶ 5 Although visitation increased, DHS did not find alternative foster placement for BTW. At the second review hearing the foster parent intervened. Following the hearing the trial judge issued an order on 15 February 2008 that again directed a change of foster-home placement, reunification for the permanency plan, and visitation between the mother and her child to continue. [7] The state, child, and foster mother (the appellants in BTW I ) immediately filed an emergency motion for the cessation of the mother's visitation rights and a stay of portions of the order. The trial judge denied this motion. [8] ¶ 6 On 25 February the appellants filed in this court an application to assume original jurisdiction, a petition for writ of prohibition, and an application for an emergency stay. The court stayed solely the requested change in foster placement. [9] It assumed original jurisdiction on 18 April and issued a writ prohibiting further proceedings in the case. [10] During this time, the appellants also filed in the district court motions for disqualification of the trial judge [11] and reasonable efforts to return the child to the home no longer be required, in accordance with the terms of 10 O.S. § 7003-4.6(A). [12] ¶ 7 On 21 April the appellants sought a request to clarify whether the court's writ of prohibition prevents the enforcement of the trial court's order for visitation. [13] Three days later DHS suspended all visitation and appellants filed an emergency motion requesting the court to construe the writ of prohibition as preventing enforcement of the visitation order. This motion was bottomed on reports of the child becoming physically sick following the most recent visitation and allegations that the mother threatened to strangle the child on an earlier weekend visit. [14] The court responded by an order to permit the district court to place for hearing before a disinterested judge the appellants' motion to discontinue visitation. Following a two-day hearing, a newly-appointed judge ruled supervised visitation to take place not more than once a week. [15] The trial judge's 19 June order noted the incidents leading to the hearing on visitation were not as horrible as characterized by the child and her supporters nor were they as noncontroversial as was characterized by mother. [16] The court's decision in BTW I that affirmed the district court order was issued on 16 September 2008.