Background
Three minor children—J.S. (born February 7, 2011), N.A. (born September 28, 2015), and M.A. (born January 18, 2017)—appealed a trial court order adjudicating them as “deprived” children and removing them from their mother’s custody. The Department of Human Services took the children into custody in June 2025 and filed a petition alleging drug use, exposure to domestic violence, children left overnight in the care of registered sex offenders, the mother’s extensive DHS history with five substantiated cases, failure to protect by the father figure, and a domestic abuse charge against the father figure in 2018.
At the adjudication hearing, the mother, Laci Shupp, appeared pro se (without counsel) and stipulated to all factual allegations in the State’s petition. Children’s counsel was present but did not object to the mother’s stipulations or the deprived adjudication. The trial court adjudicated the children as deprived on July 7, 2025. The mother’s counsel application had not been ruled on before the adjudication hearing, but counsel was appointed and the mother reaffirmed her stipulations after the appeal was commenced. The biological fathers did not appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the minor children have standing to assert their mother’s constitutional and statutory right to appointment of counsel, reasoning that a mother’s fundamental right to care and custody of her children and the children’s constitutionally protected right to familial integrity necessarily intersect—any injury to the mother’s procedural rights affects the children’s own interests.
Despite this standing, the court found no reversible error. Although the mother appeared pro se at the initial adjudication hearing without counsel, any error was rendered moot when the mother, represented by counsel, reaffirmed her stipulations during the disposition hearing while the appeal was pending, and the children’s counsel declined to object. The court emphasized that mother’s stipulations to the factual allegations constituted competent evidence supporting the deprived adjudication, and under Oklahoma law, stipulations are binding on the parties and courts. The court further noted that facts may be relitigated at the termination-of-parental-rights stage, where the State’s burden of proof increases from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence.
On the substantive issue of conditions to correct, the court affirmed that the mother’s abusive use or addiction to licensed medical marijuana is an appropriate condition to correct, holding that even lawfully prescribed marijuana poses a safety threat when abused or used without physician monitoring. The court analogized to prior cases involving alcohol and prescription drug abuse, noting that substance abuse—regardless of legal status—that endangers children warrants correction as a prerequisite to family reunification.
Key Takeaways
- Children may assert their mother’s right to counsel on appeal when procedural defects affect the children’s own fundamental right to familial integrity and family integrity is at stake.
- Errors in appointment of counsel may be cured and rendered moot when a parent subsequently reaffirms stipulations with counsel present and the child’s representative declines to challenge them.
- A parent’s stipulations to factual allegations in a child deprivation petition constitute competent evidence supporting a deprived adjudication even without sworn testimony.
- Licensed medical marijuana abuse is a cognizable condition to correct in child welfare cases, as the legality of the substance is irrelevant when abuse poses a safety threat to children.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the intersection of parental procedural rights and children’s interests in Oklahoma child welfare proceedings. By recognizing that minors have standing to assert their parents’ Sixth Amendment-adjacent right to counsel, the court protected a structural guarantee without requiring the children to pursue separate appeals. However, the mootness holding provides practical guidance: procedural defects in deprivation adjudications can be cured at later stages if a parent reaffirms positions with counsel, preventing reversals on technical grounds when the parent’s own position does not change.
The decision also establishes that substance abuse conditions to correct are not limited to illegal drugs or substances used contrary to prescription. Licensed medical marijuana, when abused or used without medical supervision, falls within the trial court’s authority to require correction. This approach aligns Oklahoma law with the principle that child welfare law focuses on safety and threat to the child, not the legal status of the substance. The decision preserves parents’ opportunity to challenge findings at the higher-burden termination stage, balancing children’s need for permanency with parents’ opportunity to remedy the conditions that led to deprivation.