IN THE MATTER OF T.H.

2015 OK 26

Summary: T.H., a minor child, was removed from the home of her mother at the age of five. She was adjudicated a deprived child and mother's parental rights were terminated. In this process she was adopted by a couple, and lived with the adoptive couple until the age of fifteen when she disclosed that the adoptive father had sexually abusing her since the age of five or six years old. The adoptive couple's parental rights were terminated by consent. T.H. filed an application to reinstate the parental rights of her biological mother. The State objected to this application and the trial court denied the application. The appeal was heard by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, which also denied the application.

Legal Issues: T.H.'s application is pursuant to 10A O.S. §1-4-909 which reads in relevant portion that a minor may apply for reinstatement of a parent's rights if:

1. The child was previously found to be a deprived child;

2. The parent's rights were terminated in a proceeding under Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes;

3. The child has not achieved his or her permanency plan within three (3) years of a final order of termination; and

4. The child is at least fifteen (15) years old at the time the application is filed.

The dispute in this matter regards the third requirement. T.H. argued that because of the failure of the placement with the adoptive parents that a new three year window of opportunity had opened. The State argued that a permanency plan had been in effect for far longer than three years as pertaining to the biological mother, and that as such T.H.'s application did not fall within the statutory requirements. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the language of the third requirement was ambiguous, and therefore looked to the legislative intent behind the enactment. There it found a strong legislative intent not only for permanency for the child, but also for rehabilitation of the child's home if possible. From this the Court held the phrase "has not achieved his or her permanency plan" includes a situation where permanency through adoption or other proceedings has failed.

Discussion: While we cannot be clear from the opinion, it appears that the biological mother has reformed herself and/or her living conditions to the point where T.H. would not be returning to a deprived situation. No objection from the State appears in that regard. The Court noted that a child should not be punished for a faulty placement that lacked permanency from the outset due to negligent placement by the State and sexual abuse by the adoptive father.