MAY 2025 | VOLUME 1 ISSUE 11

OFR is putting together an end-of-year self-evaluation data overview. Keep an eye out to join us in celebrating our wins and identifying ways we can improve in the coming year!

Practice resources have launched on our new website! Join here!

All current and active cases should be accurately entered into LegalServer.

Check out our Training and Events Calendar!

Gwendolyn Clegg

“Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around.”

-Leo Buscaglia

OFR’s trial attorneys recently completed their self-performance evaluations. Your feedback is invaluable to OFR. However, I caught my breath as I read what you reported that you needed to improve. I jumped for joy when I read your suggestions for training topics. I smiled knowingly when you reported you felt OFR’s communication with you was just right. Like Goldilocks: not too much, but not more. Your honesty and vulnerability in your self-evaluations is how we improve and reach our goals. While we still have room to grow, we must stop and recognize how much we have achieved!

We have made incredible strides to affect our statutory purpose, and we could not have done it without you! Thank you for all your dedication, hard work, and resolve to provide Oklahoma families involved in the child welfare system with high-quality legal representation!

Shoutout to Linda Branstetter!

Linda Branstetter coordinated with her Assistant District Attorney to successfully responded to an appeal of dissolution of a guardianship in a deprived proceeding and ensured her clients' wishes were heard and upheld by the Court of Civil Appeals!

Shoutout to Brian Bush!

Brian joined Holly Iker, Tamera Reuber, and Timothy Michaels-Johnson as a trainer for our Trial Skills Fundamentals Training and did a fantastic job training on direct and cross examination! Thank you, Brian!

Shoutout to Ashley Gregg!

Ashley Gregg received TWO compliments from her parent clients this month. One client said, "[We] would talk before every court date. She made sure I knew what was happening and what to expect. She also made me feel heard and respected!" Another said, "she has been very thorough and proactive in my case she has went above and beyond and I greatly appreciate her." Way to go, Ashley!

Shoutout to Audrey Huffman and Tina Peot!

Audrey was able to get a very difficult case against her client dismissed! Through their excellent out-of-court advocacy, she and Tina Peot (the child's attorney) were able to successfully advocate for this family. This case required an interpreter that could speak Dari, the Afghan dialect of Farsi. Keep up the high quality legal representation!!

Have you done something awesome? Do you have a good story? Share it here!

Evan Humphreys, Managing Attorney of Appellate Practice

Ever had a judge get the law wrong or misapply the facts? It’s been known to happen!

Among your options for redress are two types of post-decisional motions: The motion for new trial and the motion to vacate. But, you need to be aware of each motion’s pitfalls, particularly if you ultimately still need to appeal.

Motion for New Trial

• The relevant statutes can be found at 12 O.S. § 651 et. seq.
• The applicable bases for a new trial can be summarized as:
• Irregularity or abuse of discretion preventing a fair trial;
• Misconduct by the jury or prevailing party;
• Accident or surprise;
• Verdict not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law;
• Newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered earlier;
• Error of law, which was objected to; and
• Faultless impossibility in preparing the record for appeal

12 O.S. § 651(1)-(3), (6)-(9).

• As you may be able to tell from the wording of these bases, no ground excuses trial counsel from acting with ordinary diligence and prudence.
• A motion for new trial must be filed within ten (10) days of the filing of the appealable order. 12 O.S. § 653.
• Note: This is not necessarily the same day that the decision was made. For the definition of an appealable order, see 12 O.S. § 696.3.
• A post-decisional motion filed within those ten days (regardless of how it is titled) tolls the normal 30 day deadline to file a petition in error until it has been disposed of. Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.22(c).
• However, if the motion for new trial is denied, your appeal of that denial is limited to the grounds specified in your motion. So, even if the trial court should have granted a new trial on a certain ground, the appellate courts will not reverse if that ground was not raised below. 12 O.S. § 991(b).

Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Modify

• "A 'motion to reconsider' does not technically exist within the statutory nomenclature of Oklahoma practice and procedure.” Berkson v. State ex rel. Askins, 2023 OK 70, ¶12, 532 P.3d 36.

Note: “I know there is really no such thing as a motion for reconsideration by statute. However, filing a motion titled: “Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Motion for New Trial” might help expedite the decision.

“Along with your motion, I would prepare and provide an order granting your request for reconsideration and an order setting hearing on your motion for new trial. This might hint to your judge that they can grant your motion without further hearing.

“If you file a motion for a new trial, which is the appropriate vehicle by statute, I have noticed that judges often feel compelled to set a hearing rather than rule directly on the merits of the case. Occasionally, using the phrase "motion to reconsider" can also lead to that same outcome.”

(All due credit to Kim Rebsamen for this tip!)

• The relevant statutes can be found at 12 O.S. § 1031 et. seq.
• Section 1031.1 grants the broadest authority to the trial court to alter its own judgment.
• The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said, “trial judges enjoy plenary term-time control with ‘a very wide and extended discretion’ that has been described as ‘almost unlimited.” Schepp v. Hess, 1989 OK 28, ¶9, 770 P.2d 34.
• If there is any limitation on that authority, it is that the court’s “discretion should always be exercised to promote the ends of justice.” Heitman v. Brown, 1996 OK CIV APP 148, ¶18, 933 P.2d 948.
• Section 1031, however, lists certain enumerated bases for granting the motion.
• Both motions must be filed within 30 days of the appealable order.
• After 30 days, a verified petition to vacate may be filed, but only under certain grounds enumerated in Section 1031. 12 O.S. § 1033. The time limitations for filing such a petition depend upon the ground being pled. 12 O.S. § 1038.
• “A void judgment, decree or order may be vacated at any time, on motion of a party, or any person affected thereby.” 12 O.S. § 1038.
• For an example of a void judgment, see In re Marriage of Allen, 2008 OK CIV APP 75, 193 P.3d 975 (vacating an agreed order modifying child support where the judgment roll did not show either proof or waiver of service).
• A motion filed more than 10 days after the filing of the appealable judgment, no matter its title, does not toll the 30 day deadline to initiate an appeal. Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.22(e).

Finally, note that an order granting or denying either a motion for new trial or a motion to “reconsider” is appealable by right. 12 O.S. § 952(b)(2). Of course, “any interested party aggrieved by any order or decree [issued under Title 10A] may appeal to the Supreme Court.” 10A O.S. § 1-5-101(A). Thus, under either statute, you can appeal the decision on your motion for new trial or your motion to vacate.

See Also:

“Reconsider Your Motion to Reconsider: How Post-Trial Motions Affect Your Civil Appeal” by Bevan Graybill Stockdell and Kimberly Withiam Carlson, Oklahoma Bar Journal, October 2019 (https://www.okbar.org/barjournal/oct2019/obj9008stockdellcarlson/).

Tips from a Parent with Lived Experience

By Valerie Frost, Community and Parent Advocate

Court is a scary place—especially when it’s your life, your family, and your future on the line. Most people don’t grow up thinking they’ll ever stand in front of a judge. I didn’t. And when I did, I didn’t know the rules, the language, or even what was happening half the time. That kind of fear doesn’t fade. It sticks with you.

But here’s what I know: a strong, engaged attorney can make all the difference. Not just someone who shows up to court, but someone who actually shows up for you. The courtroom might be intimidating, but your attorney shouldn’t be. Attorneys are the only thing standing between clients and the chance to be truly seen and heard.

Quality representation starts with meaningful engagement.

Here are a few things that mattered most to me, and to others I know who’ve walked through the system:

• Make contact early and often. First impressions matter. So does consistency.
• Acknowledge people’s efforts and emotions. Before solving, validate.
• Be honest about what you know, and what you don’t. Trust builds when people feel informed.
• Prepare people for what’s coming. Court is overwhelming; explain what to expect.
• Follow up. Sometimes the biggest questions come after court.

Legal representation isn’t just about knowing the law—it’s about seeing the person behind the case file. That’s what justice really looks like.

Valerie Frost is a parent, advocate, and speaker with lived experience navigating the child welfare system. She believes in building human-centered, community-driven solutions for families.

NACC published a full article by Valerie titled Human-Centered Justice for Court-Involved Families and Children. Find it on NACC's Resource Library.

In the Matter of F.B., Alleged Deprived Child

The State moved to terminate Mother's parental rights and a jury trial was set. Mother failed to appear and the trial court found that her failure to appear constituted a waiver of jury trial under 10A Section 1-4-502. Trial court held a non-jury trial; Mother's counsel objected, seeking jury trial in absentia. Mother appealed this as a due process violation and COCA affirmed the termination. The Supreme Court vacates the COCA opinion. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine if Mother received notice that failure to appear would constitute a waiver of her jury trial. Failure to appear can be deemed a waiver to jury trial and the trial court can proceed with a nonjury trial ONLY if the parent received proper notice of the possible consequences of the failure to appear. See full opinion

In the Matter of: A.R.B., D.J.N.G.B., and E.M.C., Alleged Deprived Children

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to terminate the Title 30 guardianship of the children due to the Guardian's failure to perform their duties pursuant to 30 O.S. 2021 §4-801(A)(1) and gross immorality pursuant to 30 O.S. 2021 §4-801(A)(4). Guardians isolated the oldest child from his siblings, did not allow him to attend school, and attempted to "give [child] away on Facebook." Guardians treated the child this way because Natural Mother expressed intent to regain custody of the oldest child. The Court found it in the best interest of the minor children to dissolve the guardianship and maintain the children's custody with DHS pending the adjudication hearing with the natural parents. See full opinion

In the Matter of P.R., Alleged Deprived Child

Parents jointly argue that the State failed to satisfy its burden of proof, that evidence was admitted that was irrelevant or highly prejudicial, that Mother's caseworker contributed to the inability to complete her ISP due to her punitive manner, and that the State committed error by refusing to provide a jury instruction for the effect of non-termination of parental rights. While Parents' Counsel did file Motions in limine that were denied by the court, Parents' Counsel did not object at the time the evidence was offered. "An aggrieved party must raise the issue again at the time the evidence is offered." COCA found that any possible error would be harmless as there were other independent grounds for termination. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Orders Terminating Natural Parents' Parental Rights. See full opinion

In the Matter of B.H., Alleged Deprived Child

Mother argues there was not sufficient evidence to show that DHS made active efforts and that she was not competent to participate in the jury trial. COCA found the district court did not err in determining that active efforts were made. Because Mother failed to preserve the issue of competency for appeal, COCA did not consider the allegation of error. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Order Terminating Parental Rights. See full opinion

In the Matter of S.J.J. and P.G.J., Alleged Deprived Child

Mother argues the State failed to give the Cherokee Nation notice of the proceeding and failed to present sufficient evidence of active efforts. At the Emergency Custody Hearing, the children's tribe was identified as the Osage Nation and Osage Nation was given notice. While the case was pending, Mother filed a Motion to Transfer to Cherokee Court. Osage Nation filed a Notice of Intervention, asserting it is the children's tribe, and Cherokee Nation denied the transfer request. COCA found the State made a sufficient active efforts finding. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Order Terminating Parental Rights. See full opinion

In Re: N.A. and L.A., Adjudicated Deprived Children

In this case, the trial court has already issued a Final Permanency Order returning the children to Parents. However, because having a previous deprived adjudication may be grounds for termination in the future, the Supreme Court still reviewed the appeal. Mother argues that according to the UCCJEA, Oklahoma is not the home state of the children. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the order that, pursuant to the UCCJEA, Oklahoma has jurisdiction over this proceeding. Many previous opinions by COCA and the OK Supreme Court have referred to UCCJEA jurisdiction as "subject matter jurisdiction." Here, the Court revises that reading of the UCCJEA. "Let us be clear today, jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is a statutory, procedural limitation that prescribes circumstances under which the State district court should yield to another State's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, but it does not remove the Oklahoma district court's constitutionally-conferred subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the deprived status of children and custody matters." In response to the State's argument, the Supreme Court explicitly states that the UCCJEA applies to deprived proceedings. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma found the court properly exercised jurisdiction and affirms the order adjudicating the children deprived. See full opinion

In the Matter of: J.P.J.K., Jr. and N.M.W., Alleged Deprived Children

Mother argues that the court erred by terminating her rights on grounds not alleged in the adjudication proceedings, that DHS did not provide reasonable efforts, and that the state failed to prove that she did not correct conditions. COCA found no due process violations in the decision to terminate on the additional grounds alleged. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights. See full opinion

In the Matter of: J.P.J.K., Jr., Alleged Deprived Child

Father argues that the Court abused its discretion by allowing prejudicial hearsay into evidence, that DHS failed to provide reasonable efforts, and that the State failed to prove termination was in the child's best interest. COCA ruled the evidence was not considered prejudicial hearsay and that reasonable efforts were made. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Order Terminating Parental Rights. See full opinion

In the Matter of A.C., A.C., K.C.,K.C., L.C., Alleged Deprived Children

Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support termination based on failure to correct or length in time in foster care, and whether termination was in the children's best interest. Mother pointed to recent success in obtaining housing and sobriety and that two foster parents testified that they believed Mother could care for the children and that there were no safety concerns. COCA decided that the evidence presented by the State was clear and convincing. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Order Terminating Mother's Parental Rights. See full opinion

In the Matter of A.C. and K.C., Alleged Deprived Children

Father argues that the State did not establish its grounds for termination under 1-4-904(B) and failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child's best interest. COCA determined the State had proven the ground of abandonment because Father did not appear in proceedings from the time that Mother was granted trial reunification until Mother's rights were terminated. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the Order Terminating Father's Parental Rights. See full opinion