| (Cite
as: 78 P.3d 1243)
Court
of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,
Division
No. 3.
In
the Matter of Child, B.R.W.
Brandon
Shane Womack and Kristina Ann Womack, Appellants,
v.
Felicia
Rudey Schmidt, Appellee.
No.
98,899.
Released
for Publication by Order of the Court
of
Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.
Sept. 19, 2003.
*1243 Appeal
from the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma; Honorable David E.
Powell, Trial Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
FOR NEW TRIAL.
Richard A. Williams,
Pain and Garland, Anadarko, OK, for Appellants.
Githen K. Rhoads, Lawton,
OK, For Appellee.
OPINION
ADAMS, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Brandon Womack,
the father of the minor child, B.R.W., and his wife, Kristina Womack (collectively,
the Womacks), appeal a trial court's order denying
their petition to terminate parental rights and to declare B.R.W. eligible
for adoption without the consent of her mother, Felicia Schmidt (Mother).
[FN1] The Womacks argue, inter
alia, that
the trial court erred in failing to appoint an attorney for B.R.W. We
agree and reverse the order.
FN1.
We note that there appears to be no Oklahoma authority authorizing a custodial
parent to bring an action for termination of parental rights under these
circumstances. The Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S.2001 § 7501-1.1
et seq.,
allows a custodial parent to bring an action for termination of parental
rights only against putative
fathers in
§ 7505-4.1. Moreover, the Oklahoma Adoption Code controls any action
for termination of parental rights where the child is not alleged to be
deprived. See
10 O.S.2001 § 7006-1.1(C). However, the Womacks also requested the
appropriate relief available under § 7505-4.1, i.e.,
a determination that B.R.W. was eligible for adoption without the consent
of her mother.
¶ 2 According to
the Womacks, Mother's consent was made unnecessary under the provisions
of 10 O.S.2001 § 7505-4.2(H)(1) *1244
and (I)(1).
[FN2] The trial court denied the Womacks' request, specifically concluding
that the Womacks had not presented proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"
and had interfered with
Mother's ability to maintain a relationship with the child.
[FN3]
FN2.
Under § 7505-4.2(H)(1), consent to an adoption is not required from
a parent who "fails to establish and/or maintain a substantial and
positive relationship with a minor for a period of twelve (12) consecutive
months out of the last fourteen (14) months immediately preceding the
filing of a petition for adoption of the child." Under § 7505-4.2(I)(1),
consent is not required from a parent who "failed to protect the
minor or a sibling of such minor from physical or sexual abuse that is
heinous or shocking to the court."
FN3.
The trial court's order specifically addresses only the Womacks' allegations
under § 7505-4.2(H)(1) that Mother failed to maintain a relationship
with B.R.W., and does not address the allegations under § 7505-4.2(I)(1)
concerning abuse.
¶
3 For reversal, the Womacks first argue that the trial court was required
to appoint an attorney to represent B.R.W. Mother conceded this should
have been done, but argues that the Womacks may not raise this error on
appeal because they did not request the appointment of an attorney for
B.R.W. in the trial court. However, "fundamental error" is an
exception to the general
rule that an appellant may not obtain reversal on an issue not raised
in the trial court, see
Pine Island RV Resort, Inc. v. Resort Management, Inc.,
1996 OK 83, 922 P.2d 609, and In
the Matter of Adoption of K.D.K.,
1997 OK 69, ¶ 3, 940 P.2d 216, 217, holds "the trial court's
failure to appoint independent counsel to represent the minor child ...
at the hearing to determine eligibility for adoption without the parental
consent ... constitutes fundamental
error."
(Emphasis added).
¶ 4 K.D.K.
requires us to reverse the trial court's order and remand the case for
a new trial. We need not specifically address most of the Womacks' remaining
arguments for reversal because they involve examination of the sufficiency
of the evidence to support the trial court's order.
[FN4] However, we will address the Womacks' argument concerning the appropriate
burden of proof because the alleged error is likely to be repeated upon
remand.
FN4.
We do note the trial court's finding that the Womacks interfered with
Mother's ability to maintain a relationship with B.R.W. because they only
gave her a "post office box number" as their address when they
moved does not appear to be supported by the evidence. According to the
testimony, the Womacks provided Mother with their new address as "Rt.
1, Box 155, Anadarko, OK." Although this is not a "street address,"
it does describe a physical location which may be determined through inquiry.
Moreover,
§ 7505-4.2(H)(2) required Mother to "prove to the satisfaction
of the court that ... she ha[d] taken sufficient legal action to establish
and/or maintain a substantial and positive relationship" with B.R.W.
prior to receiving notice of these proceedings. Mother's appellate argument
that she could remain "passive" if her ability to maintain a
relationship with her child was obstructed is of questionable validity.
¶ 5 The Womacks contend
the trial court erred in finding that they failed to comply with 25 U.S.C.
§ 1912(f) of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA),
[FN5] arguing that this particular proceeding does not involve removal
of an Indian child from an Indian parent or Indian environment. We agree.
FN5.
Section 1912(f) of the ICWA provides:
No
termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the
absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued
custody of
the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious
emotional or physical damage to the child. (Emphasis added.)
The
Oklahoma ICWA,10 O.S.2001 § 40.1 et
seq., applies
when ICWA applies.
See Matter of
the Adoption of D.M.J.,
1985 OK 92, 741 P.2d 1386.
¶ 6 After considering
the purpose of ICWA and certain language within 25 U.S.C. § 1912,
the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Matter
of the Adoption of D.M.J.,
1985 OK 92, ¶ 12, 741 P.2d 1386, 1389, that § 1912(f) did not
apply to an adoption case "in the absence of an attempt to 'break-up
the Indian family' or interrupt the 'continued custody' of the child by
the Indian parent." Based thereon, the Court affirmed the trial court's
determination that ICWA did not apply to the adoption of D.M.J. without
her Indian father's consent because she had been *1245
in her non-Indian mother's custody since the parents' divorce.
¶ 7 In this case,
it is undisputed that B.R.W. is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Indian
tribe, as is Mr. Womack, and Mother admits she is a non-Indian in her
brief.
[FN6] Although Mother initially had custody of B.R.W., Mr. Womack has
had legal custody of B.R.W. since July of 1998 by order of the Stephens
County District Court. As in D.M.J.,
ICWA did not apply to the Womacks' request to adopt B.R.W. without Mother's
consent because they are clearly not attempting to "break-up an Indian
family" nor attempting to interrupt the "continued custody"
of an Indian child by an Indian parent. The trial court erred when it
found that the Womacks failed to comply with § 1912(f)
of ICWA, which requires a termination of parental rights determination
be supported by evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt."
FN6.
The Womacks also point out in their brief that Mother "made no proof
of Native American blood." Admissions in an appellate brief are acceptable
as material supplementing the record. Deffenbaugh
v. Hudson,
1990 OK 37, 791 P.2d 84.
¶ 8 The Womacks'
request for a determination that Mother's consent is unnecessary is governed
by a "clear and convincing" burden of proof. See
Matter of Adoption of Darren Todd H.,
1980 OK 119, 615 P.2d 287. The trial court's order is reversed, and the
case is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
FOR NEW TRIAL.
JOPLIN, C.J., and BUETTNER,
J., concur.
78 P.3d 1243, 2003 OK
CIV APP 92
|