Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Nov. 1, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
120,729 – In the Matter of the adoption of: N.J.B. B.R.B. and A.M.B., Minor Children, Brittney Ramirez, Appellant, v. Jared Boehm and Brandi Boehm, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma. Appellant, Brittney Ramirez, appeals three orders granting an adoption to Appellees, Jared Boehm and Brandi Boehm: (1) an order determining the children are eligible for adoption without their mother’s consent, (2) an order determining adoption is in the children’s best interests – terminating mother’s parental rights, and (3) the final decree of adoption. All three orders are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Affirmed. Opinion by GOREE, P.J.; SWINTON, J., and DOWNING, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
121,274 – Lopez Foods, Inc., Petitioner, V. Silver L. Chavez, deceased, Norma Chavez and The Workers’ Compensation Commission or the Workers’ Compensation Court of Existing Claims, Respondents. Proceeding to review and Order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Petitioner, Lopez Food, Inc., appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Respondent, Norma Chavez, produced sufficient evidence to establish the death of her late husband Silver Chavez (Decedent) arose out of the course and scope of his employment. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Commission are supported by sufficient competent evidence and adequately explains the decision. Therefore, we affirm by summary opinion under Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(b) & (d), 12 O.S.2021, Ch. 15, App.1. Opinion by DOWNING, J.; GOREE, P.J., and SWINTON, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
Division II
121,138 – In the Matter of the Adoption of A.E.T., A Minor Child, Stanley and Mary Fernandez, Appellants, vs. Justin Tyra, Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Nichole M. Gillett, Trial Judge. Petitioners Mary and Stanley Fernandez (Grandparents) appeal the trial court’s Order denying their petition to adopt A.E.T. without consent of natural father, Justin Tyra (Father), based on Father’s alleged willful failure to contribute any support to A.E.T. according to his financial ability for a period of twelve consecutive months out of the fourteen months preceding filing of their Petition. Grandparents admitted at trial that Father had contributed support during the applicable period but contended that support was not in accord with Father’s financial ability. The trial court granted Father “directed verdict,” essentially finding that Grandparents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that A.E.T. was eligible for adoption without consent. The trial court’s determination is not contrary to evidence, and its denial of Grandparents’ Petition was not an abuse of the court’s discretion. We affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. Oct. 25, 2023
Division III
120,499 – In re the Marriage of Hale: C.D. Hale, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Melanie Breann Hale, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Marshall County, Oklahoma. Honorable Wallace Coppedge, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellant Father appeals from the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage from Respondent/Appellee Mother. Specifically, Father contends the court erred in awarding custody of their minor child to Mother because Mother was the perpetrator of domestic violence. That Mother was guilty of domestic violence was shown by a preponderance of the evidence. That creates a rebuttable presumption that Mother should not get custody. We reverse and remand this case for further proceedings to determine if Mother overcame the rebuttable presumption that she should not have custody of the child. See 10 O.S. 2021 §§ 109(I)(2)(a), 109(I)(1) and 109.3. Father further contends the court erred in its determination of Mother’s income for the purpose of calculating Father’s child support payments. We find the court’s computation of child support was not against the clear weight of the evidence and affirm this portion of the order. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
120,534 – State of Oklahoma, ex rel, Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Medhat S.F. Michael, M.D., License No. MD23746, Defendant/Appellant. Appeal from the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision. This is a direct appeal by Defendant/Appellant, Medhat S.F. Michael, M.D., from an Amended Order dated July 28, 2022, issued by Plaintiff/Appellee, the State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision (Board). This Amended Order enforced Defendant’s 2014 bilateral settlement agreement with the Board. The Amended Order also denied Defendant’s application for the reinstatement of his Oklahoma medical license, denied his motion in limine, and imposed a $5,000.00 fine against Defendant. Under the 2014 settlement agreement, Defendant voluntarily submitted to the Board’s jurisdiction, relinquished his medical license and agreed to never apply for reinstatement of his medical license in exchange for the dismissal of felony criminal charges pending against him. Defendant was charged with felony criminal sexual battery for Defendant’s predatory sexual behavior towards his patients and employees, and with violations of Oklahoma statutes and the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) for sexual misconduct, fraudulent license renewal, obstruction of the Board’s investigation, falsification of medical records, and prescribing controlled dangerous substances to Defendant’s wife. This settlement agreement was approved by the Board in an Order Accepting Voluntary Surrender to Jurisdiction dated March 6, 2014 (VSJ). In 2014, Defendant’s criminal charges were expunged by an Oklahoma County District Court and that order was affirmed by an appellate court. In 2015, Defendant filed a motion to vacate the VSJ. The Board denied the motion. Defendant appealed arguing he was denied due process and that the Board lacked the authority to enter the VSJ. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s order denying the motion to vacate and denied Defendant’s motion to expunge any public record of his arrest and the criminal charges. In 2018, Defendant’s motion to modify the VSJ was denied. In 2020, Defendant submitted an application for reinstatement of his medical license, a motion to review application, and motion in limine. State filed an objection and a motion to enforce the VSJ. The Board denied Defendant’s application and motions, granted State’s motion to enforce the VSJ, and imposed a $5,000.00 fine against Defendant. On appeal, Defendant claims the Board violated his substantive and procedural due process rights by denying Defendant a full and fair hearing on the application. Defendant also maintains the Board’s imposition of the $5,000.00 fine was punitive, it was not in accordance with the severity of the violation, and the fine was contrary to both 59 O.S. 2021 §509.1 and OAC 435:5‑1‑4. After reviewing the record, we find the Board’s order is free from prejudicial error and AFFIRM pursuant to Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.202(d), 12 O.S. 2021, ch. 15, app.1. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
120,843 – In the Matter of K.D. and R.D., Alleged Deprived Children: State of Oklahoma, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Dempsey Delotis Dunn, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Charles Kevin Morrison, Trial Judge. Respondent/Appellant Dempsey Delotis Dunn (Father) challenges the termination of his parental rights to his minor children, K.D. and R.D. Father’s rights were terminated after a jury returned verdicts finding it was in the children’s best interests to terminate Father’s rights because (1) the children had been in foster care for six of the most recent twelve months and (2) Father had not corrected the conditions that caused the children to be adjudicated deprived – namely, exposure to domestic violence, threat of harm, and lack of a safe and stable home. On appeal, Father claims the State failed to present competent evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests because testimony on that topic was not given by a licensed social worker. However, the authority Father cites does not provide or even suggest that testimony from a licensed social worker is required to establish a child’s best interest. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
120,954 – Alisha Mae Reeves, Petitioner/Appellee, v. Wade Ryan Reeves, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable April Seibert, Trial Judge. Petitioner/Appellee Alisha Mae Reeves (Mother) and Respondent/Appellant Wade Ryan Reeves (Father) were divorced in California. Mother still lives in California with the parties’ three minor children, while Father now resides in Tulsa. In May 2022, the parties reached an agreement to modify Father’s child support. The Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus entered a stipulation and order reflecting the modification on May 19, 2022. Mother then filed an application to register the California support order in the Tulsa County, Oklahoma District Court. She was ultimately successful in that regard. On appeal, Father challenges the orders confirming registration of the support order and denying his motion for new trial. We AFFIRM. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
121,233 – Robert Swanston and Jacque Slick, Individually and as natural guardians and next friends of V.S., a minor and V.S. by and through her natural guardians and next friends Robert Swanston and Jacque Slick, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. M.W. by and through her natural Guardian and next friend Kenneth Wade Welborn, Defendants/Appellees, and Dane Butterfield, Jennifer Butterfield, Jake Butterfield, Glenn Mill, and Connie Mill, Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. This is an appeal from a negligence action filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants, Robert Swanston and Jacque Slick, individually and as the natural guardians and next friends of V.S, a minor, and V.S., by and through her natural guardians and next friends, Robert Swanston and Jacque Slick. V.S., then fourteen (14) years old, fell and was injured when she was riding as a passenger in a two‑person all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) being driven by Defendant/Appellee, Jake Butterfield, a minor child. Defendant/Appellee, M.W., a minor child, was also a passenger of the ATV when V.S. sustained her injuries. After conducting discovery, Plaintiffs amended their petition to name M.W. as a defendant. Plaintiffs alleged M.W. negligently failed to call V.S.’s mother when V.S. fell off the ATV, and M.W. negligently boarded and rode on the ATV with four other people on it without seat belts or helmets. M.W. filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12 O.S. 2021 §2012(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. M.W. maintained Plaintiffs’ negligence claim failed as matter of law because M.W. had no duty to rescue or render aid to V.S. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice after finding Plaintiffs cannot amend their petition to allege a legally cognizable claim against M.W. After de novo review of the record, we AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and PRINCE, P.J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
121,312 – In the Matter of the Adoption of: L.B.D., a minor child, Carl Wesley Davis, Appellant, v. Keith Edward Mueller and Lori Michelle Mueller, Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Abby Rogers, Trial Judge. Appellant, Carl Wesley Davis, appeals a Final Decree of Adoption that was entered without his consent. The child, L.B.D. (“Child”), was born on January 3, 2020, and the trial court entered the Final Decree of Adoption on April 27, 2023. Mr. Davis contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support an order determining that his consent was not necessary for the adoption. The trial court determined that Mr. Davis’ consent was not required due to his failure to support the Child, his failure to establish and/or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the Child, and due to his incarceration and the resulting harm to the Child that would occur if the parental relationship continued. We find that the trial court committed error when it allowed the adoption to proceed without Mr. Davis’ consent as a result of his failure to support the Child. We, however, further find that the trial court Order in question was supported by clear and convincing evidence for the issues involving the parent‑child relationship. We, therefore, AFFIRM the Final Decree of Adoption. Opinion by PRINCE, P.J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and BELL, J., concur. Oct. 26, 2023
Division IV
120,152 – Cody Cavnar, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Jessica Hughes, now Brown, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Carter County, Hon. Thomas K. Baldwin, Trial Judge. Petitioner, Cody Cavnar, (Father) appeals a district court order terminating the joint custody agreement between Father and respondent, Jessica Hughes, now Brown, (Mother), awarding sole custody of the parties’ minor child, ESC, to Mother, awarding Father limited supervised visitation with ESC, and resolving other miscellaneous issues. We find the district court erred in taking judicial notice of the testimony and evidence presented at the prior guardianship proceeding which resulted in the district court entering the Order filed on December 15, 2021. This matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, by HUBER, J.; BLACKWELL, P.J., and FISCHER, J., concur. October 27, 2023