JULY 2026 | VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1

Join our Practice Resources page here!

Check out our Training and Events Calendar!

REMINDER FOR ATTORNEYS: Check that your LegalServer is up-to-date and accurate! LegalServer maintenance is one of your imperative contractual duties.

Gwendolyn Clegg

Happy 2nd Birthday OFR!

Anytime I am asked to speak about the Oklahoma Office of Family Representation, I always state that OFR is a dream come true. Many spectators laugh and are incredulous at such a statement. However, when you have represented parents and children in Oklahoma’s juvenile deprived system for more than 24 years you should understand my statement, whether you are an attorney, a case worker, a CASA, a community stakeholder, a bystander, or a family member.

Families accused of abuse and neglect face an enormous bureaucratic government system coming at them with great speed, no information or support, and frightening consequences. The Oklahoma Office of Family Representation was created by the Oklahoma legislature under the Family Representation and Advocacy Act and Program to tackle those very issues.

The legislature defined the purpose of OFR. The legislature stated that our purpose shall be to ensure uniform and high-quality legal representation for children and indigent parents, legal guardians, and Indian custodians in deprived child actions brought by the state pursuant to the provisions of Section 1–1–101 et seq. of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes. OFR took this purpose a step further to embody a mission to empower parents and children involved in the child welfare system through uniform, high-quality legal representation!

High-quality legal representation has a definition. The Family Justice Initiative has defined what high-quality legal representation should be for children and parents in child welfare proceedings. The fundamental attributes of quality legal representation for parents and children in child welfare proceedings, goes beyond presumed competency, knowledge of the law, rules of procedure, negotiation, and trial skills. Attributes of High Quality Legal Representation for Children and Parents in Child Welfare Proceedings, Family Justice Initiative, https://familyjusticeinitiative.org/model/high-quality-representation/.

The fundamental attributes of quality legal representation include: (1) attorney caseload and compensation; (2) use of the interdisciplinary practice model; (3) understanding diversity/cultural humility; (4) timing of appointment of lawyers; (5) support and oversight of attorneys; and (6) accountability use of data. Id. With the passage of the Family Representation and Advocacy Act and Program the legislature declared that Oklahoma families needed and deserved high-quality legal representation in juvenile deprived proceedings. OFR was created to confront the enormous task of bringing FJI’s attributes of high-quality legal representation to Oklahoma’s families.

In the two years since OFR’s birth, OFR has addressed not only basic lawyering skills but has built a firm foundation implementing FJI’s six attributes of quality legal representation. OFR has reduced attorney caseloads commiserate with national standards of no more than 80 cases for a lawyer practicing deprived law full-time. FJI recommends full-time lawyers have a caseload of no more than 60 cases. OFR is hopeful to reduce caseloads even further as we age. We have increased attorney compensation exponentially, providing lawyers with a competitive wage for the work required.

OFR has implemented interdisciplinary teams into parent and child representation. Providing attorneys with master social workers and parent/youth mentors to assist the attorney in representing the parent or youth in their child welfare proceeding. The interdisciplinary team serves under the lawyer as his/her non-lawyer assistant(s) and the team is protected from divulging confidential information as the legal defense team for the parent/youth client. See ORPC Rule 5.3. I encourage every OFR lawyer to request an interdisciplinary team for their clients. Reach out to your Regional Director of Social Work if you have questions about requesting and working with an interdisciplinary team.

OFR has provided training on cultural humility and implicit bias in collaboration with HARUV USA. Attendees learned that child welfare impacts culture. Cultural humility at its very core is about connection, dignity, and being respectful of people. Cultural humility starts with self-reflection and awareness. Learning openness, empathy, and compassion to be “other” oriented as well as institutional accountability and acknowledging power imbalances and balancing those power imbalances. The training is invaluable! The training was recorded and remains available on OFR’s website.

OFR has implemented policies and procedures contractually requiring attorneys to meet with their clients as soon as possible upon appointment. OFR requires attorneys to record initial and latest client meetings in our case management software. OFR has developed coaching, corrective action and consequences for attorneys who fail to meet with their clients and who fail to document client interaction in our case management software. We also require our attorneys to have a suitable space within which to hold regular, timely, and meaningful conversations, allowing client centered representation.

OFR provides attorneys, social workers, and mentor support and oversight. Support includes clearly defining the roles and expectations that OFR has of each attorney, social worker and mentor. OFR provides clients with the opportunity to provide feedback by providing a compliment or complaint button on our website as well as surveying our clients, allowing them to provide feedback on the representation they received.

OFR provides support to our attorneys, social workers, and mentors by providing case consultations on strategy and the law, an overflowing practice resource bank, an abundance of training, a monthly newsletter full of supportive articles on recent appellate outcomes, shout-outs for amazing work, practice tips, calendar events, state and local news, including conferences, and a space to welcome our new comrades. OFR holds our attorneys, social workers, and mentors accountable by providing annual performance reviews to ensure our clear expectations are being met and quality legal representation is being provided.

Finally, OFR implemented quality improvement measures using various technological systems to measure qualitative and quantitative outcomes. OFR’s use of case management software, training surveys, client surveys and judicial surveys as well as the self-performance evaluations of our attorneys, social workers, and mentors provides data for OFR to evaluate OFR’s commitment to improve the legal representation of parents and children in Oklahoma’s child welfare system.

OFR is just getting started! We have witnessed many families receiving quality representation over the past two years. However, much more work is needed. Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back. Now is the time to dig deep and keep pushing forward in implementing and educating Oklahomans about the needs of families enduring the child welfare system. Oklahoma families need attorneys, social workers and mentors unafraid to stand tall and advocate zealously for their rights to be a family!

OFR program updates:

OFR is implemented in 51 counties across the state of Oklahoma providing quality legal representation to parents and children in all five DHS regions. OFR contracts with 175 attorneys, social workers, and mentors. OFR’s interdisciplinary teams are currently serving 200 clients across all four DHS regions. OFR’s appellate attorney panel has concluded 74 appeals since its inception on July 1, 2024, and is currently awaiting decisions in 42 appeals. OFR continues to receive annual appropriations from the legislature.

Shoutout to Courtney Jordan!

For the submission of a stellar brief to the Oklahoma Supreme Court defending the protections of ICWA. Execellent work, Courtney!

Shoutout to Terry Allen!

When faced with a sudden placement disruption for a client less than a week from turning 18, Terry Allen worked diligently with DHS to find a new placement that would keep his client housed until he got into Job Corps!

Shoutout to Mackenzie Jacobson!

She has been diligently preparing to take on her new contract, getting up to date and involved!

Shoutout to Jenny Sanbrano!

Taking difficult positions and sticking to it even when its not easy to advocate for her child clients

Shoutout to Bob Jamison!

For advocacy on behalf of a mother when there was confusion around a verbal order from a judge. Bob clarified and was able to get a favorable outcome for the mom!

Shoutout to Constance Bear and Andrea Russell!

These ladies jumped in with a lot of fast work on a very tough case and have been amazing to work with! They are knowledgeable, compassionate, and hard-working and go above and beyond. I wish they could be on every one of my cases--true assets to OFR and the families they help!

Shoutout to Kacie Cresswell!

She was able to get a requirement for mental health services removed from an ISP because it wasn’t listed on the Petition. Great work!

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

Timothy Michaels-Johnson, Region 5 Managing Attorney for Child Representation

Whether providing expressed interest representation or substituted judgment representation, attorneys for children have an obligation to independently investigate the allegations underlying a deprived petition or motion to terminate rights. A timely investigation prepares the attorney to communicate meaningfully with the child, assess the evidence supporting the allegations, and when appropriate, formulate substituted judgment. Many attorneys wait until discovery is exchanged pursuant to 10A O.S. 1-4-101 before reviewing the limited DHS records shared by the State. Attorneys for Children don’t have to wait. 

The attorney for a child in a deprived proceeding has the right to review DHS agency records without a court order. 10A O.S. 1-6-103(A)(3). The definition of agency record is expansive and includes far more than the Report to the District Attorney. 

'Agency record’ means records prepared, obtained, or maintained by a public or private agency with regard to a child who is or has been under its care, custody, or supervision or to a family member or other person living int eh home of such child and shall include but not be limited to:  

a. any study, plan, recommendation, assessment, or report made or authorized to be made by such agency for the purpose of determining or describing the history, diagnosis, custody, condition, care, or treatment of such child, or  

b. safety analysis records that have been prepared and obtained in response to a report of alleged child abuse or neglect and include assessment reports and reports to the district attorney with all support documentation attached and any addendums. 

10A O.S. 1-6-101(B)(3).  

PRACTICE TIP: 

Upon appointment, in preparation for a hearing, or when developing your substituted judgment: 

• Contact the assigned DHS specialist 
• Request access to your child client’s agency records 
• Specify any records you wish to review 
• Report to the District Attorney 
• Assessment of Child Safety 
• Case Notes 
• Case Contacts 
• Placement History 
• Service Provider progress notes 
• Child Safety Meeting notes 
• Family Team Meeting notes 
• Permanency Planning Documentation 
• Consider filing a motion to enforce your client’s right to access should the DHS specialist refuse 

Jayci Howerton, Region 1 Director of Social Work

Best Practices for Family Time and Visitation in Child Welfare Cases

Visitation between parents and children when children are in custody is critical to reunification. According to Cornerstone Advocacy in the First 60 Days by the Child Law Practice, meaningful and frequent visitation is the single best predictor of safe and lasting reunification. Supporting a child’s attachment to their parents through visitation helps reduce the anxiety and confusion that often accompanies foster care placement. Further, when parents are given the opportunity to continue in their parenting role, it strengthens the parent-child relationship and motivates parents to continue working toward reunification.

This article explores best practices for visitation and how attorneys, social workers, and mentors can support families both inside and outside of the courtroom to improve the likelihood of reunification.

Family Time and Levels of Visitation

The Department of Human Services (DHS) utilizes Family Time, a practice model designed to promote timely reunification and preserve the parent-child relationship. According to the Family Time Judicial Bench Card, there are five levels of visitation:

• Unsupervised – The parent and child have visitation without oversight.
• Monitored – A monitor has some level of contact to ensure the visitation plan is being followed.
• Observed – The monitor remains close enough to observe but may allow limited private interaction between parent and child.
• Supervised – The most commonly used level, where an objective third party remains within visual and auditory distance throughout the visit.
• Therapeutic – The most restrictive level, where a clinician or professional with therapeutic expertise supervises the visit for a clinical purpose.

Visitation should always be based on the least restrictive level necessary to ensure child safety while preserving and strengthening family relationships.  Family Time should not ever be suspended in lieu of clean drug tests. Visitation is a right of the child. In fact, evidence suggests that visitation is linked to improved permanency and well-being, and withholding visitation should not be used as a threat or punishment for parent as it irrevocably harms the child (casaforchildren.org).

Incorporating the Cornerstones in Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Practice

At OFR, we strive to incorporate the Five Cornerstones into our interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach to provide high-quality legal representation. Attorneys, social workers, and mentors should discuss with families the importance of visitation early and often. Families may not realize that visitation is more than simply spending time together—it is an opportunity to strengthen relationships, engage in culturally appropriate activities, demonstrate parenting skills, practice new techniques, and provide valuable information to the court regarding progress toward reunification.



Attorneys, social workers, and mentors can support this process by:

• Requesting visitation occur at least once per week for two hours, or more frequently when appropriate.
• Asking, on the record, for the specific reasons supervised visitation is being recommended.
• Advocating for visitation in the least restrictive and most natural setting possible, such as shopping trips, parks, libraries, splash pads, museums, sporting events, holiday celebrations, school activities, culturally appropriate activities such as hair braiding, cooking, or other community activities. DHS offices should be used only as a last resort.
• Reviewing whether visitation has been successful for 30 days or longer and asking whether the level of supervision can be reduced.
• Assessing what current safety threats or concerns still exist in the case and whether they align with the original reasons for supervision.
• Asking DHS to clearly identify what specific actions or progress parents need to demonstrate to move toward less restrictive visitation. There is nothing in DHS policy that requires visitation to be suspended if a parent brings a video to a visit for their children to watch instead of playing an educational game. If DHS expects a parent to use their provided educational books and games, they need to explain that expectation. Also, if a DHS worker speaks to their documentation of observing a lack of bonding, they need to be able to articulate their education on bonding and attachment. 

In the Matter of A.R., D.R., and H.R.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Father appeals a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his three children, arguing he was denied procedural due process and that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he failed to correct conditions. The record showed Father, incarcerated in Missouri throughout the proceedings, had arranged to appear at trial by video, but the jail refused to provide this possibility two days before trial, and the court denied his continuance and proceeded in his absence. Reviewing de novo, COCA held that no alternative procedure was offered, that Father had no prior opportunity to confront the witnesses, and that the State showed no risk to the children in their current placements, so proceeding in his absence impaired his ability to defend. COCA reverses and remands. Read full opinion

In the Matter of the Guardianship of A.V., P.V. & H.V.

Mother, appealing pro se, appeals an order reconsidering four February 2024 orders the Oklahoma Supreme Court had voided by writ of mandamus, raising forty-four propositions of error that challenged the guardianship as jurisdictionally infirm and asserted due process, confrontation, visitation, and transcript-access violations. COCA held Mother repeatedly failed to support her propositions with citations to the record and to legal authority as the rules require, that the guardianship itself was not before the court, and that the trial court acted within its discretion on each issue, including transcript limits protecting the children's best interests. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of D.P.Jr., M.P.1 & M.P.2

Mother and Father appeal a jury verdict terminating their parental rights, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the grounds and best-interests findings and that their due process rights were violated by inconsistencies and a lack of detailed jury findings. The record showed a long history of domestic violence and mental health instability. COCA held clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the failure-to-correct ground and best interests, that the unchallenged length-of-time ground independently sustained the verdicts, and that the conditions were specified as In re T.T.S. requires. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of E.R., H.R. & O.R.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights following a jury verdict, arguing the State failed to prove the failure-to-correct ground by clear and convincing evidence and that the trial court violated her constitutional rights by denying her waiver of a jury trial and calling a jury on its own motion. The record showed that Mother, though engaged in services, kept unsafe individuals around the children and did not demonstrate changed behavior. COCA held clear and convincing evidence supported termination for failure to maintain a safe and stable home and lack of proper parental care. They find that section 1-4-502(B) permits a court to call a jury despite a waiver without violating her rights. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of K.F. and S.F.

Mother appeals a jury verdict terminating her parental rights to two minor children, arguing the State failed to meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, that the children's appointed attorney had a conflict of interest, and that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act in finding that active efforts were made. COCA held clear and convincing evidence supported termination. They also found that there was supposedly no harm from the children's attorney having worked for the district attorney's office on the same case, and that DHS and Cherokee Nation testimony established active efforts. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of T.L.

Father appeals an order adjudicating T.L. deprived after a bench trial, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements of the minor children over his objection and that the State failed to meet its burden to prove the child should be adjudicated deprived. The record showed T.L., an infant subject to ICWA through Mother, was removed after a domestic violence referral, including a 911 call by an older half sibling. COCA held the 911 call was admissible under present-sense-impression, excited-utterance, and other hearsay exceptions regardless of the disputed child-hearsay statute, that Father waived his challenge to the caseworker's testimony by failing to object contemporaneously, and that evidence, including ICWA expert testimony, supported the adjudication under the preponderance standard. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of the Adoption of K.X.P.H.

Mother appeals an order determining the minor child eligible for adoption without her consent, arguing the trial court erred because she has a fundamental right to raise her child and was unable to contact the child due to her incarceration and methamphetamine addiction. The record showed Mother relinquished custody in January 2022, that the guardian had sole custody since December 2022, and that while Mother was incarcerated in Florida had no contact with the child, and did not pay support during the statutory fourteen-month period. COCA held clear and convincing evidence supported the failure-to-support and abandonment grounds. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of the Adoption of V.V.S.

Natural Father appeals an order permitting Stepfather to adopt the minor child without Natural Father's consent on the ground that he willfully failed to support the child, arguing the order was contrary to the evidence. The record showed the adoption order incorporated by reference a court minute that was never mailed to the parties, that the minute conflicted with the order on the support ground, and that the trial court expressly declined to decide whether Natural Father knew or should have known of the support order setting his obligation. COCA held the conflict between the order and the minute denied Natural Father notice of the basis for curtailing his parental rights and must be clarified or corrected, with the willfulness and notice questions decided in the first instance on remand. COCA reverses and remands. Read full opinion

In the Matter of the Adoption of C.G. and P.P.

Guardians appeal the trial court's denial of their application to adopt C.G. and P.P. without parental consent under, arguing the court erred in finding that Parents had not abandoned the children, had maintained a substantial and positive relationship, and had not willfully failed to support. The record showed Parents moved to California for residential drug treatment in November 2023, continued in-person and telephone visits and sent gifts until Guardians halted contact in June 2024, then petitioned to terminate the guardianship. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, COCA held abandonment requires a subjective intent to relinquish parental duties, that Parents' petition to terminate the guardianship constituted "sufficient legal action" against Guardians' denial of contact, and that the unordered failure to support was not willful where Guardians had refused Parents' offer of support. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of Z.Z.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights after a bench trial, arguing the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child and that her mental health condition could not be corrected in a reasonable amount of time. COCA held DHS satisfied reasonable efforts by referring Mother to services, and that her refusal to acknowledge her mental health condition supported termination, noting termination could be affirmed on a single ground. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

In the Matter of A.R., B.R., Z.R., and C.R.

Mother and Father separately appeal a jury verdict terminating their parental rights to four children. Three of the children also appealing the termination of Mother's rights. Father argues the court erred in proceeding in his absence, in admitting his prior convictions, and in finding shocking abuse and best interests determinations, while Mother and the children challenge the sufficiency of the threat-of-harm and best-interests findings. Reviewing de novo, COCA held Father's instruction to proceed in absentia barred his challenge and that clear and convincing evidence supported the threat-of-harm and best-interests findings against Mother, despite the children's challenge and expressed wish to prevent the termination of her rights. COCA affirms. Read full opinion

Interested in being notified as appellate decisions are made? Sign up for OSCN's mailing list using this link.

Samantha Swaim - Trial Attorney, Lincoln and Pottawatomie Counties

Samantha is originally from Eastern Oklahoma. She went to the University of Central Oklahoma for Psychology. After graduation, she worked at Positive Tomorrows, the only school in Oklahoma serving children experiencing homelessness. She then went to Oklahoma City University School of Law. Upon passing the Bar exam, she worked at the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, representing individuals in criminal proceedings, anywhere from Trespassing to Murder in the First Degree. She left OIDS in December of 2025 to start her own private practice based in Norman. 

James Asbill - Trial Attorney, Delaware County

James has been practicing law in the State of Oklahoma since 2017. The son of a preacher and early childhood educator, he was born in Oklahoma but was raised all over the country before attending the University of Tulsa College of Law. While there, he arrived at a deep appreciation for Northeastern Oklahoma and decided to settle in Tulsa for good. Over the course of his career, James has gained experience across a diverse selection of practice areas, including criminal law, insurance defense, civil litigation, juvenile, family and domestic, and probate law.  

Mr. Asbill earned his bachelor’s degree from Oklahoma Christian University in 2014 and completed his Juris Doctorate from the University of Tulsa College of Law in 2017. 

Outside the office, Mr. Asbill’s greatest joy is his wife and daughter. He also enjoys reading, camping, and watching the Tulsa Oilers and OKC Thunder play. 

Mackenzie Jacobson - Trial Attorney, Rogers County

Mackenzie Jacobson is the owner of Jacobson Law in Claremore, Oklahoma. Since 2018, her practice has focused primarily on domestic relations matters, including divorce, custody, paternity, guardianship, adoption, child support and protective order cases. She regularly represents clients in complex custody and family law litigation throughout northeastern Oklahoma. Mackenzie graduated with honors from the University of Oklahoma with a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and minors in Criminology and Psychology. She earned her Juris Doctor from the University of Tulsa College of Law. Following law school, Mackenzie served as an Assistant District Attorney, prosecuting a wide range of criminal cases before transitioning to private practice, where she has concentrated her practice on domestic relations matters since 2018. Mackenzie is honored to serve as an Office of Family Representation attorney and looks forward to advocating for parents and children involved in Oklahoma’s deprived court system.

Family Justice Journal Summer 2026 Edition

(De)Funding Family Separations - Josh Gupta-Kagan

This Article proposes a range of reforms to align financial incentives with the law’s commitment to family integrity and thus push the system towards separating families only when necessary. First, it proposes a set of incremental reforms to limit the worst incentives of the present system. Second, it proposes a mechanism to provide support to kinship caregivers without requiring the separation of parents and children. Third, it advocates a fundamental rethinking of the federal funding system: Congress should repeal the open-ended entitlement nature of the federal funding system and direct similar funds to states to invest in efforts to prevent child maltreatment and prevention activities or foster care costs.