[12:51] rightenate judiciary will come

[12:51] to order

[12:54] today we have interim

[12:58] study2026-51 Senator Hicks for

[13:00] supervised visitation safety and

[13:02] accountability appreciate you

[13:04] bringing this study forward. I

[13:04] know that there's been some

[13:06] issues including one issue

[13:08] within my district's hometown

[13:10] even as to what supervised

[13:12] custody would look at. So I look

[13:14] forward to the information

[13:14] Senator Hicks what I'll

[13:16] typically do is just turn it

[13:17] over to you for introduction of

[13:19] your study brief overview and

[13:20] then you can go straight into

[13:22] the introduction of your

[13:22] speakers

[13:24] whether you want to follow

[13:25] agenda I think that that

[13:26] probably would be best still

[13:28] willll direct any questions

[13:30] through the chair or vice chair

[13:32] but if you have any of those

[13:36] we'd be happy to honor you for

[13:38] or recognize you for asking

[13:40] those questions as well soen

[13:42] Hicks microphones turned over to

[13:44] you for introduction of your

[13:44] study and then going straight

[13:45] into the introduction of your

[13:46] speakers.

[13:48] thank you Mr Chair and thank you

[13:52] so much for all my colleagues

[13:54] joining us today thank you to

[13:54] those of you who made time to be

[13:56] here in person for this very

[13:57] important issue

[14:00] today's study will examine

[14:02] Oklahoma's current framework for

[14:02] court-ordered supervised

[14:04] visitation including the

[14:06] existing standards training

[14:07] safety protocols and

[14:08] accountability measures we'll

[14:10] also hear from judges child

[14:12] welfare professionals victim

[14:14] advocates, service providers

[14:16] legal experts and a family

[14:16] directly affected by supervised

[14:17] visitation.

[14:20] our goal is to better understand

[14:21] how supervised visitation

[14:23] operates in Oklahomaview

[14:24] national practices and identify

[14:26] opportunities to strengthen

[14:28] safety, consistency and

[14:30] accountability for children and

[14:32] families. now we are ready to

[14:33] hear from our very first

[14:34] presenter the honornorable

[14:37] Kim conyers, special judged from

[14:37] judicial District w1.

[14:48] s ome this is my first time on

[14:49] this side of the microphone I

[14:49] think.

[14:52] it's red is that correct? OK

[14:54] perfect right well as Senator

[14:56] Hicks said my name is Kim

[14:57] conyers and I am a special

[14:58] judged in Cleveland County. I've

[15:00] been on the bench there coming

[15:02] up on about 3 years now. My

[15:04] dockets in Cleveland County

[15:08] are exclusively dealing with the

[15:09] children's cases in Cleveland

[15:10] County so I have the juvenile

[15:12] deprived docket which is where

[15:13] children have been placed in DhS

[15:15] custody. I would also have the

[15:17] juvenile delinquent docket which

[15:18] is where children have gotten

[15:19] charged with offenses and then

[15:23] I also do our adoption as well

[15:26] as our adult and juvenile mental

[15:27] health dockets in Cleveland

[15:27] County.

[15:30] so my experience with supervised

[15:34] visitation comes from the DHS

[15:36] side of things when a child is

[15:40] placed in DHS custody and

[15:42] that that case is going to

[15:44] proceed through court the one of

[15:46] the things that we address at

[15:48] every hearing is what type of

[15:50] visitation how frequent the

[15:52] visitation is and what that

[15:54] looks like for the parents

[15:55] involved in the case

[15:57] so in my courtroom the way that

[15:58] I have typically handled it is

[16:02] all of the parents are

[16:03] represented by an attorney as

[16:04] well as the child has an

[16:06] attorney and sometimes we have a

[16:08] guardian ad lite or other folks

[16:11] involved as well. I typically at

[16:14] our review hearings will take

[16:16] just brief statements from all

[16:18] the parties including my DHS

[16:20] worker as to what would be in

[16:22] the best interest of the child

[16:24] how things are progressing in

[16:25] the case in terms of

[16:27] the services the parents have

[16:29] established themselves in or the

[16:32] progress that they've made to

[16:33] work those services while the

[16:36] child has been in DHS custody.

[16:40] It is up to DHS specifically

[16:42] to organize and establish a

[16:44] visitation or what they call a

[16:46] family time plan and then the

[16:48] court has the discretion to to

[16:51] modify that or make changes to

[16:54] it as I see fit as the case is

[16:55] progressing along

[16:58] most of the time what happens

[17:00] is the DHS worker will report

[17:02] here's kind of the progress the

[17:02] parents have made on their

[17:04] services herere's kind of how

[17:06] visits are going up into this

[17:08] point and this is what we the

[17:10] step we'd like to progress to

[17:12] next. It starts with a

[17:14] supervised plan that is

[17:16] supervised either by a DHS

[17:18] worker or sometimes a DHS

[17:21] employee or sometimes an

[17:23] appropriate family member a lot

[17:24] of times if children are placed

[17:25] say in

[17:28] the grandparents' home or with a

[17:30] family friend that person can be

[17:32] approved by the department to be

[17:33] the visitation supervisor

[17:38] after supervised visitation

[17:40] it steps down to what they call

[17:44] monitored visitation which is

[17:46] a lowerle obviously of

[17:48] supervision where DHS and other

[17:52] supervisors kind of come in

[17:54] and out during a visitation so

[17:55] they're not there the entire

[17:56] time but they check in during

[17:58] that twoho visit for instance.

[18:00] and then from there it moves

[18:04] to unsupervised to overnights

[18:05] and then usually to

[18:10] maybe weekends before then it

[18:10] moves into

[18:13] the stage of trial reunification

[18:14] which is kind of the final stage

[18:17] of we're still involved in the

[18:19] family's life but the child is

[18:21] essentially living back in the

[18:22] residence with one or both of

[18:23] the parents at that point in

[18:24] time.

[18:27] so that's kind of what I look at

[18:30] and I I'm a big believer that

[18:33] my decisions from the bench are

[18:36] better and are better for the

[18:39] family the more information I

[18:42] have. I I don't there's a lot

[18:44] that goes on outside of my

[18:46] courtroom with these families

[18:48] and my hope my goal is to get as

[18:50] much information from the

[18:52] participants in the case as I

[18:54] can while I'm sitting on the

[18:54] bench in order to make the most

[18:58] informed choice as to what's in

[18:59] the best interest of these

[18:59] children

[19:00] hicks

[19:06] thank you Mr chairir. when

[19:06] you're talking about the

[19:08] information that you have

[19:10] available is there what does

[19:12] the documentation look like that

[19:14] you're provided from DHS Is

[19:16] there a standardized form? there

[19:20] is there is a standardized form

[19:22] that they submit um5 days prior

[19:24] to any review hearing that is a

[19:28] review report and it documents

[19:30] what progress the parents

[19:32] have made on services and what

[19:33] visit

[19:35] ation looks like in terms of how

[19:36] things have gone, you know have

[19:38] they exercised the full time of

[19:40] visitation? have there been any

[19:41] you know

[19:44] hiccups or anything go wrong

[19:47] during the last review period in

[19:48] addition to that they also a lot

[19:52] of times will attach reports

[19:54] from the actual service

[19:56] providers to those review

[19:57] reports. So I'm seeing an actual

[19:59] report for instance from the

[20:02] parentsug and alcohol counselor

[20:04] or I'm seeing the actual

[20:06] psychological evaluation that

[20:08] was court ordered for a parent

[20:09] to participate in.

[20:13] and not just me but the other

[20:15] attorneys involved in the case

[20:16] have access to that

[20:17] documentation and information as

[20:17] well.

[20:21] Further questions

[20:26] Judge conyers said think

[20:26] whenever you're doing an

[20:28] introduction you said just

[20:29] during DHS custody are the only

[20:30] ones that you supervise is this

[20:32] also during ok they are my my

[20:36] cases are strictly the cases

[20:38] on the juvenile deprived docket

[20:39] which is children that have for

[20:40] whatever reason been placed in

[20:43] DHS custody or are under DHS

[20:46] supervision if they if it hasn't

[20:48] risen to the level of us taking

[20:49] the children into actual DhS

[20:49] custody.

[20:53] Is there much review whenever

[20:56] it's just a family dispute like

[20:57] say a divorce or other

[20:59] situations for sure you I'll let

[21:01] judgedge Byeer speak directly to

[21:04] that. My experience has been

[21:06] with those that I do have a

[21:10] handful of paternity cases that

[21:12] involve some of that but my

[21:13] experience typically with those

[21:16] has been it is up to the the

[21:19] parties involved and the judged

[21:20] how frequently they feel like

[21:21] it's

[21:23] necessary or warranted to review

[21:23] those

[21:28] type of of situations typically

[21:30] in deprived cases I can go as

[21:32] long as6 months without holding

[21:34] a review. most of the cases that

[21:38] I hear we review at a minimum

[21:40] every 90 days and then I have a

[21:42] standing policy in my courtroom

[21:44] that all of the attorneys are

[21:46] familiar with that is if

[21:47] anything needs to be brought to

[21:47] the court's attention

[21:51] you contact my office we put

[21:52] it on a review docket

[21:53] immediately and you get in front

[21:55] of me on my next wednesday

[21:55] docket

[22:00] Further questions Senator Hicks

[22:01] should recognize

[22:06] thank you Mr Chair. So kind

[22:06] of in preparation we had a

[22:09] conversation before today's

[22:10] study and so I understand that

[22:12] Oklahoma County has kind of a

[22:13] unique

[22:16] team effort so I was wondering

[22:18] if you might be able to to share

[22:20] kind of what that looks like

[22:22] that's provided through the

[22:24] statutes that you may be able to

[22:26] have this kind of I will

[22:27] actually turn that over to Judge

[22:29] Byer to speak about Cleveland

[22:30] County does not have any such

[22:32] thing in place that I'm aware of

[22:34] at this point in time.

[22:36] certainly not for the

[22:39] deprived cases I will say I I

[22:40] noticed on the agenda that a

[22:42] representative from the

[22:43] familypresentation Act

[22:46] is scheduled as well that's been

[22:48] one of the biggest benefits that

[22:50] I have seen in my courtroom is

[22:53] utilizing that because I have

[22:56] the same pool of attorneys who

[22:58] were taking court appointments

[23:00] in cases and on one case they

[23:02] might represent mom and on the

[23:03] next case on my docket they have

[23:05] the children and so it gives

[23:08] them a broad perspective of

[23:11] these cases and also allows them

[23:12] to develop working relationships

[23:13] with one another

[23:16] and with the district attorney's

[23:17] office said that that

[23:17] information sharing is

[23:22] a lot easier and it happens

[23:23] outside of my courtroom in

[23:24] between those lawyers that

[23:26] they're able to make sure

[23:28] nothing's falling between the

[23:29] cracks and make sure those kids

[23:30] and families are getting all the

[23:31] attention that they need

[23:38] musteralhart you're recognized

[23:39] for a question

[23:40] your honornor's

[23:43] how has Leo's law impacted your

[23:43] court

[23:53] can't say that for Cleveland

[23:54] County I can't say that it has

[23:56] in in that great of a we are

[23:58] really really lucky in Cleveland

[23:59] County with the group of lawyers

[24:00] and kind of the court system

[24:02] that was in place before I took

[24:05] over the bench so I I can't

[24:06] say that that it has

[24:06] specifically

[24:12] Senator Hicks you're recognized

[24:12] for your next speaker on the

[24:13] agenda.

[24:16] thank you so much Mr Chair and

[24:17] thank you judgedge conyers for

[24:18] joining us today. I apologize

[24:20] that I got Cleveland County

[24:24] confused but with that it's the

[24:26] perfect segue into our next

[24:28] presenter the honorableharron

[24:30] Byer who is the special judged

[24:32] in judicial district seven here

[24:33] in Oklahoma County.

[24:34] thank you

[24:39] I'm Sharon Byeers I'm a special

[24:40] district judged in Oklahoma

[24:42] County. I sit on the family and

[24:46] domestic floor. so unlike Judge

[24:48] conyers, I don't deal with cases

[24:52] that are in deprived actions

[24:54] ideal all in family law court

[24:58] so divorce paternity and then

[25:00] modifications of those orders

[25:04] we're very fortunate that we

[25:06] have a state statute that deals

[25:09] with supervised visitation we do

[25:14] initle43 section 110.1a and the

[25:15] legislature has set out

[25:18] some guidelines for us that I

[25:19] don't know that

[25:22] that they have in juvenile

[25:22] court. I have not

[25:26] haven't really practiced in

[25:27] juvenile court nor have I been a

[25:29] judge in juvenile court but we

[25:32] do have a supervised visitation

[25:34] program by statute that is run

[25:36] by the associate district judged

[25:38] for the county who happens to be

[25:40] here with me today uhjudge

[25:42] Singleton and she has developed

[25:48] practices to comply with the

[25:49] statute so we have

[25:54] unfortunately when you get into

[25:54] family court, we do not have a

[25:56] lot of the services that are

[25:59] available for children who are

[26:02] in DHS custody and so we have to

[26:02] rely upon

[26:03] other

[26:06] things

[26:06] and

[26:10] we don't get DHS services now we

[26:11] will have

[26:14] we can get reports from DHS what

[26:14] happened if the children

[26:16] happened to be in the deprived

[26:18] action and then once that is

[26:19] dismissed they'll come into

[26:19] family court

[26:22] and so we can get that

[26:24] information but we don't have

[26:26] those services available. I

[26:26] think that's probably part of

[26:28] the reason why the legislature

[26:30] and developed a supervised

[26:34] visitation program and so we

[26:36] have people who can volunteer as

[26:37] supervisors after they go

[26:38] through a background check and

[26:40] fill out an application we can

[26:41] develop a team which we have

[26:44] started to do in Oklahoma County

[26:48] and to develop protocol and

[26:50] training and various things so

[26:52] that we keep our kids as safe as

[26:54] we possibly can under the

[26:56] time that they are in

[26:56] supervision

[26:58] so

[27:00] I don't know if you want me to

[27:02] say some more or if you have any

[27:03] questions

[27:08] Sener heck should recognize

[27:09] thank you Mr Chair. will you

[27:11] read the statute just so that

[27:11] we have that in the record.

[27:12] the entire statute

[27:16] for follow up

[27:20] we do have a submitted so I mean

[27:22] it's it can be just put into

[27:23] exhibit we don't have to read it

[27:25] in its entirety perfect I

[27:25] think

[27:28] more intentionally would you

[27:30] speak to the part that is

[27:32] allowed Oklahoma County to be

[27:32] able to develop the team

[27:34] situations that you're that you

[27:35] all are working on

[27:39] well inokklahoma County we have5

[27:40] judges who are assigned to the

[27:43] family and domestic division and

[27:44] so Judge Singleton got us

[27:48] together and talked to us about

[27:50] developing a team and then we

[27:52] could create some subcommittees

[27:54] to start working on the various

[27:58] aspects of getting together

[28:02] training and a manual for best

[28:04] practices and various thingsrior

[28:05] to that judgedge

[28:06] Singleton was

[28:08] singlehandedly

[28:12] sending you know sending out

[28:12] applications for people who are

[28:14] interested getting them to get

[28:16] their background checks and

[28:17] going through

[28:20] the qualifications and then

[28:22] creating a list so we have a

[28:23] list in Oklahoma County of the

[28:24] people who have been qualified

[28:26] to serve as supervisors

[28:30] but we are actively pursuing

[28:33] other avenues to make it better

[28:36] Did I answer your question

[28:38] I think one thing that

[28:40] makes it

[28:44] easier for Oklahoma County is

[28:46] the population and the number of

[28:48] people I think unfortunately

[28:49] when you

[28:52] get to other counties that have

[28:54] a smaller population less

[28:56] judges, less service providers I

[28:56] mean we're very fortunate in

[28:58] Oklahoma County that we have

[29:00] there's a supervised visitation

[29:02] facility people who are

[29:04] interested in doing supervision

[29:06] and places in public that those

[29:09] can actually take place so we

[29:12] have the manpower to do some

[29:13] really great things and to

[29:15] comply with the statute that may

[29:18] not be available to other places

[29:19] where the population is

[29:21] less

[29:26] Judge, thank you for being here

[29:27] today

[29:28] on these so in the family law

[29:32] cases those that you see are the

[29:34] supervised visitations the

[29:34] result of judged's own

[29:38] review or does that to be

[29:38] brought forward by one of the

[29:40] parties to the the matter is it

[29:43] a recommendation by DHS is there

[29:44] quarter appointed special

[29:46] advocates that come in and

[29:47] initially recommend this how

[29:48] does it how does it get

[29:48] initiated?

[29:52] we don't have DHS in our courts

[29:53] and we don't have court

[29:54] appointed special advocates

[29:58] those are all in juvenile courts

[30:00] so it usually comes to our

[30:00] attention by a parent filing

[30:01] something

[30:04] whether that's an application

[30:06] for an emergency custody order

[30:07] or at the beginning of a case

[30:07] before you

[30:12] get fully into it parties can

[30:13] ask for a temporary order

[30:14] hearing which is exactly what it

[30:15] sounds like that's a temporary

[30:16] order that's in place until you

[30:20] can do discovery and get to to

[30:22] the final order so they'll

[30:22] oftentimes come in on a

[30:23] temporary order hearing

[30:26] very early on in the case and

[30:30] then either parents will ask for

[30:32] supervised visitation or as a

[30:33] judge you're hearing what the

[30:34] issues are and the things going

[30:36] on and at that point

[30:40] you will order I'll order

[30:42] supervised visitation. It

[30:43] usually comes along with the

[30:44] appointment of a guardian ad

[30:46] litem so we since we don't have

[30:48] casa and we can appoint

[30:50] guardians ad litem to come in

[30:52] and help with an investigation

[30:54] and so we'll do supervised

[30:56] visitation while we're doing an

[30:58] investigation to ensure the

[30:59] safety of children and just like

[31:00] judgedge conyers the more

[31:02] information I can have the

[31:05] better. I want information from

[31:06] all sources if there's prior

[31:07] juvenile

[31:10] contacts, I want the information

[31:12] from the juvenile court. I want

[31:13] we oftentimes have

[31:16] workers from DHS come in and

[31:18] testify about their previous

[31:20] investigation and various things

[31:20] of that nature so that we know

[31:21] that we're

[31:24] protecting children as much as

[31:25] we can.

[31:32] I imagine most of the family law

[31:34] cases become very adversarial.

[31:36] do you see that the process gets

[31:42] overused or bludgeons used as

[31:44] a bludgeon to make

[31:44] allegations that then have to be

[31:48] substantiated or do you think

[31:50] that most of this is really just

[31:50] in the best interest of children

[31:52] as it gets brought forward to

[31:53] you by one of the parties

[32:00] I think that's a hard question

[32:02] to answer it's very

[32:03] adversarial yes

[32:06] but

[32:08] the safety of children is of

[32:10] utmost importance so if we have

[32:12] to have some supervised

[32:14] visitation while we're

[32:16] investigating it. I would rather

[32:16] be safe than sorry. I'd rather

[32:18] the children be protected

[32:22] so I wouldn't say that it's

[32:24] overused. I mean is there a time

[32:25] that

[32:28] sometimes that people abuse the

[32:29] system

[32:29] sure

[32:33] I don't think that that is the

[32:33] norm

[32:34] I think

[32:40] oftentimes people will come

[32:40] before me and they're just

[32:42] talking about the daily lives

[32:44] and things that happen and they

[32:45] haven't asked for supervised

[32:48] visitation but the things that

[32:48] they're telling me that they

[32:52] think are normal are telling me

[32:53] that there's a safety risk here

[32:53] and

[32:56] maybe not all parents recognize

[33:00] the safety risk because they're

[33:01] so far into

[33:06] whatever's happening that that

[33:06] has become their norm so

[33:11] I feel like I see that more than

[33:12] you people using it as a

[33:12] weapon

[33:16] en er hicks

[33:22] thank you Mr Chair and so on on

[33:23] the team that you guys are

[33:25] developing are there child

[33:27] development experts that are

[33:30] present or that are our lending

[33:34] expertise on the impact to the

[33:36] children based on the court's

[33:37] recommendations or the court's

[33:37] orders

[33:42] we are inviting those people in

[33:42] that's what the statute

[33:46] provides for that they can sit

[33:48] on those teams so we have an

[33:50] informational meeting coming up

[33:51] and then we were going to invite

[33:51] more and more people into it

[33:57] one final question from the

[33:58] chair unless there's others from

[34:00] the committee and this is for

[34:02] you judged as well as Judge

[34:03] conyers if she wants to come

[34:04] back are there policy

[34:06] recommendations that you see

[34:08] being the ones that implement

[34:09] this at the trial judge level

[34:09] that the legislature needs to

[34:10] look at

[34:14] for streamlining and or further

[34:14] protection of children that are

[34:17] in supervised or should be in

[34:17] supervised sup

[34:19] visitation programs

[34:23] are you asking me if I have

[34:23] policy recommendations today

[34:28] or would be able to develop some

[34:28] you or Judge conyers

[34:32] think we would be happy to

[34:34] develop policy recommendations

[34:34] with the team. I didn't bring

[34:35] any with me today but

[34:40] I'm happy to reach back out and

[34:41] with any policy recommendations

[34:46] en ator Hicks on to the next

[34:50] thank you Mr Chair and thank you

[34:53] so much to both of you all for

[34:54] lending your time I know that

[34:56] there were some dockets that had

[34:57] to be moved around and so I

[34:58] really appreciate you all

[35:00] spending time with us today as

[35:02] we maybe just me learn

[35:06] more about the judicial side of

[35:08] this very important issue and

[35:10] next we have Megannorurk

[35:12] who's the deputy deputy director

[35:14] of child welfare programs from

[35:15] DHS.

[35:20] ed's on correct? OK I did

[35:22] have some slides I don't know if

[35:23] we wanted to pull those up or

[35:24] it's ok if not

[35:52] we had 3 that were sent in and

[35:52] that was this office of

[35:54] familymily representation the

[35:55] attorney general's office and

[35:56] YWCA no problem did you have

[35:58] others those are not it's ok we

[35:59] will pivot

[36:01] right we may proceed

[36:06] again thank you for having us

[36:08] and inviting DHS to the table

[36:10] today to talk about this topic

[36:12] I just want to reiterate the

[36:12] information I'm here to share

[36:15] today share today pertains to

[36:18] children who are removed have

[36:20] been placed in DHS custody or

[36:22] have come to the attention of

[36:23] the department as needing some

[36:24] sort of intervention whether

[36:27] that's prevention services or

[36:27] supervision cases

[36:32] to start off with family time

[36:34] is definitely a right of the

[36:36] child and the family

[36:40] heritleinny statute the DHS

[36:42] is responsible for implementing

[36:44] a family time plan within se

[36:48] days of removal within those

[36:52] 1st 90 days at minimum a visit

[36:53] occurs with the child and their

[36:55] family one time per week the

[36:57] frequency of that is definitely

[36:57] subject to change pending

[37:00] any court orders and things of

[37:01] that nature.

[37:04] after 90 days those visits go to

[37:06] a minimum of two visits each

[37:08] month but again there's

[37:10] always exceptions for frequency

[37:12] that could be the parent

[37:14] doesn't isn't participating or

[37:16] unable to locate that parent

[37:18] there could be a court order

[37:20] potentially impacting family

[37:22] time it could be in the

[37:24] child's safety or best interests

[37:28] to have a redi reduction in

[37:30] family time or even an increase

[37:31] a lot of times our infant

[37:33] s when they're removed right

[37:36] after birth we do see

[37:36] increase in family time for that

[37:40] bonding with the parent if

[37:41] the permanency plan is different

[37:44] than reunification that too can

[37:46] impact the frequency of family

[37:48] time meaning if we have a case

[37:49] that comes to our attention

[37:50] and it's shocking and heinous

[37:52] and the DA is seeking

[37:54] straight termination that could

[37:54] also impact frequency of family

[37:55] time.

[37:58] I think it's important to

[38:00] note just kind of where we're at

[38:02] as a state you heard

[38:04] judgement mention family time

[38:04] we used to call it visitation

[38:08] and in2020 we had DHS

[38:10] leadership actually seek out

[38:14] nationally and talked to a judge

[38:16] in Georgia and they

[38:18] reimplemented the way that they

[38:18] think about visits when you

[38:20] think about visits maybe you

[38:22] think about a hospital setting

[38:24] you think about prison things of

[38:24] that nature. familymily time

[38:25] should encompass

[38:28] a special moment between a

[38:30] parent and a child to really

[38:32] emphasize that bonding and so

[38:33] the state of Oklahoma decided to

[38:34] rebrand. we shifted from

[38:36] visitation to family time and

[38:38] our court partners you know

[38:40] other community folks have

[38:42] definitely come on board with us

[38:43] in this shift

[38:46] family time can impact the

[38:47] child's wellbeing. it's

[38:48] essential to their immediate and

[38:52] long term connection when you

[38:53] think about connecting with

[38:54] their their siblings with

[38:56] their parents grandparents. I

[38:58] think the most important thing

[39:00] to note too about family time

[39:01] and is that it's driven by

[39:04] safety anytime we are looking

[39:06] for a different level in

[39:08] supervision. safety is our

[39:10] driving factor we're looking at

[39:12] parents' protective capacities

[39:13] what has changed since that

[39:13] time

[39:16] of removal are we seeing a

[39:19] correction and do we feel

[39:20] comfortable making that

[39:20] recommendation to the court for

[39:22] that next level of least

[39:23] restrictive family time.

[39:26] it's also important to note too

[39:28] that each family is an

[39:30] individualized family. It could

[39:32] look different from case to case

[39:34] while you might have two

[39:36] families removed for the same

[39:38] situation the dynamics are

[39:40] different. there's many case

[39:41] complexities that go into that

[39:42] and so each recommendation to

[39:44] the court for the level of

[39:46] family time should be thoughtful

[39:48] and based and sound safety

[39:49] decision making.

[39:54] so you heard our judgement

[39:54] the different levels of

[39:56] supervisioni too was going to

[39:58] go over that a little bit we

[40:00] do have a matrix I think our

[40:02] most important family time

[40:04] level to point out is

[40:08] therapeutic and that is the the

[40:10] most restrictive and therapeutic

[40:12] is really for those families or

[40:13] maybe the youth doesn't want to

[40:16] see their parents or there was

[40:16] something that happened at the

[40:18] time of removal that was very

[40:19] traumatic and we need a

[40:19] therapist

[40:22] present thank you thank you I'm

[40:23] sorry

[40:26] let me just go ahead and skip

[40:28] then to this matrix so you guys

[40:28] can see it

[40:31] it's very small. OK sorry

[40:32] about that. Well again this

[40:35] kind of walks backwards so from

[40:36] the right we're at therapeutic

[40:38] which is the most restrictive.

[40:40] this is where you have a

[40:42] therapist present. this is gene

[40:44] generally where you will see

[40:46] family counseling. we are

[40:46] following the recommendation of

[40:50] that child's therapist to

[40:52] really reintroduce that

[40:54] relationship with the parents.

[40:56] it's very rare that you might

[40:58] see therapeutic family time

[40:58] or counsel

[41:02] ing or family counseling just

[41:03] because it does have to be done

[41:04] by a professional

[41:08] you then have supervised again

[41:09] that's where someone is

[41:10] constantly watching the family

[41:12] they can hear what's going on,

[41:14] they can see what's going on.

[41:16] we have observed you have

[41:18] someone who can see but they

[41:20] might not be hearing everything

[41:24] so we are at a park and I can

[41:26] visually see what's occurring. I

[41:26] can't hear everything but I'm

[41:28] comfortable in knowing that that

[41:30] child is safe with that parent

[41:32] in that situation. you have a

[41:34] monitored so that could be where

[41:35] the monitor

[41:37] comes by the home, the child is

[41:38] brought to the parent's house

[41:40] the monitor stays for 30

[41:44] minutes.ing is fine arent has

[41:44] unsupervised time with that

[41:48] child for a brief period of time

[41:48] and then the monitor comes back

[41:50] and ensures everything is ok and

[41:52] then you have unsupervised

[41:54] and again that's where you can

[41:57] have overnights they take them

[42:00] for extended amounts of time and

[42:02] we have done a level of safety

[42:04] assessment at every supervision

[42:05] level to

[42:06] ensure that it is the most

[42:07] appropriate for that child

[42:11] so you heard me mention monitor

[42:12] and so I just kind of wanted

[42:15] to go over this a little bit a a

[42:17] monitor could be a family member

[42:19] someone who knows the family

[42:22] who we trust they can

[42:24] recognize what a safety threat

[42:26] is. they know the reason why the

[42:28] children came into care they

[42:28] feel comfortable with

[42:30] intervening if something does

[42:34] come up within that time they

[42:35] know how to manage that they are

[42:37] a trusted partner generally this

[42:37] would be someone who comes to

[42:38] our family meeting

[42:40] s who knows about the case plan,

[42:44] case progression, what we're

[42:46] asking from the parent to get to

[42:48] the point of reunification. They

[42:50] are a partner at the table

[42:50] and very aware of everything

[42:52] that's going on with the case.

[42:54] They also have to have their

[42:56] background screened we have

[42:58] their child welfare checks we

[43:01] have a background check done. we

[43:03] know that we trust this person

[43:05] to help us monitor the family

[43:05] time

[43:08] and they also support the

[43:10] parents. We want to monitor that

[43:12] can give coaching and feedback

[43:14] in a safe environment so that

[43:16] the parent knows behaviors and

[43:17] things like that that maybe they

[43:18] could improve upon for the next

[43:19] family time setting

[43:24] I did do a s a slide

[43:26] specifically over therapeutic

[43:27] family time cause I did notice

[43:28] this was on the agenda and I

[43:30] just wanted to point out that it

[43:32] is with a professional or

[43:34] clinical therapeutic

[43:36] expertise who's supervising play

[43:38] therapy, family counseling

[43:39] that's where you're going to see

[43:42] this. this is all dependent

[43:44] on capacity I think you

[43:46] mentioned rural so I think it

[43:48] just depends on what services

[43:50] are available in that county

[43:54] where they have the ability to

[43:54] also do therapeutic family time.

[43:58] and that is all I have any

[43:59] questions?

[44:02] you recognized for your question

[44:06] thank you Mr Chair. so on the

[44:08] designation of monitor. what is

[44:10] that the standard iss there

[44:12] training support guidance help

[44:14] me understand if if someone's

[44:16] entrusted to monitor a

[44:18] supervised visitation what does

[44:20] DHS except as a responsibility

[44:23] to prepare that monitor for yes

[44:24] for children in care when we're

[44:28] looking for a monitor. this

[44:30] is typically a family member if

[44:32] we're trying to have more

[44:32] frequent family time generally

[44:34] the place that we want to look

[44:36] to first are the parents

[44:38] supports so it could be a family

[44:38] member or neighbor or someone

[44:40] like that we need to have

[44:42] someone who understands what the

[44:44] safety threat was if they're not

[44:44] acknowledging that there could

[44:48] potentially be another

[44:48] instance or something like that

[44:50] that's something we're going to

[44:52] take into consideration.

[44:54] there's not training per se

[44:56] however, when we are developing

[44:58] a family time plan roles and

[45:00] responsibilities are listed out

[45:02] in that family time plan and so

[45:03] that monitor should walk away

[45:06] fully understanding what their

[45:08] role is in family time and what

[45:08] to do if something were to

[45:12] happen it's a team effort so

[45:15] we have family time or family

[45:18] meetings every60 to 90 days we

[45:18] should be reviewing that family

[45:21] time plan at every family

[45:22] meeting so if something needs to

[45:24] be changed if we need to look at

[45:26] the level of supervision if we

[45:28] have a different recommendation

[45:30] that whole team is discussing it

[45:32] in that moment. perfect time for

[45:33] the monitor to say hey

[45:36] I need some help or can you

[45:38] please help guide me on

[45:40] something else and then that

[45:40] team can support that monitor

[45:41] for next steps

[45:44] hicks for a follow up

[45:48] thank you Mr Chair so

[45:52] I mean again on the monitor's

[45:52] roles and responsibilities and

[45:54] your you're listing out that

[45:58] oftentimes you look close to

[45:58] family members neighbors someone

[46:00] who's close to that child and I

[46:02] understand from kind of a child

[46:02] development perspective why that

[46:04] would be important do you feel

[46:07] like that offers any conflict of

[46:08] interest in really being able to

[46:10] monitor the situation

[46:11] effectively for the safety of

[46:13] the child. I don't know that

[46:14] there's a conflict of interest

[46:15] but we do have family who

[46:15] sometimes

[46:18] comes forward and says I'm not

[46:18] comfortable doing this because

[46:20] I'm related to this family

[46:22] member and they don't want to

[46:24] cause a strain on that

[46:26] relationship which we completely

[46:28] understand if that's the case

[46:30] then we we kind of move around

[46:32] maybe how we're going to do this

[46:33] the monitor could also be the

[46:36] worker so the worker could come

[46:36] by check in with the family.

[46:38] they are trained professionals

[46:40] who know what to look for in

[46:43] terms of safety looking outside

[46:44] for a monitor like a family

[46:45] member is just another

[46:47] way to maybe make the parent and

[46:49] the family feel comfortable

[46:50] but again if that's not

[46:52] something that the family wishes

[46:54] to do then the responsibility

[46:55] does come back to DHS to find

[46:55] another way.

[46:58] hicks for a follow up

[47:00] thank you Mr Chair and so in

[47:01] that

[47:05] scenario it is completely

[47:06] reliant upon whoever's been

[47:09] asked to be the monitor to be

[47:11] forthcoming is that correct

[47:12] correct the the family

[47:15] identifies and we have that

[47:16] conversation and if they are not

[47:18] in the position of wanting to do

[47:21] that or can then the agency will

[47:21] find a different solution.

[47:25] hicks for a follow up

[47:28] thank you Mr Chair. So I guess

[47:30] I'm just trying to draw out that

[47:31] that there's a potential for

[47:31] potential

[47:36] coercion possibly that if an

[47:38] individual is close to those

[47:39] children and wants to make good

[47:40] decisions on behalf of the

[47:42] children and their close with

[47:44] the family member that has to be

[47:47] monitored or supervised do you

[47:48] see that that that could

[47:50] possibly work against the best

[47:52] interests of the safety of the

[47:54] child. I don't don't believe it

[47:56] impacts the safety of the child

[47:59] the agency when we are going

[48:00] out and doing our worker visits

[48:01] we have to check in with the

[48:01] monitor weekly we

[48:04] are discussing safety so if

[48:05] there were any

[48:09] red flags or concerns about that

[48:11] child's safety the worker would

[48:13] be investigating that and in

[48:14] those conversations that we're

[48:15] having on a weekly basis with

[48:15] monitors

[48:16] hicks

[48:20] thank you Mr Cha. so what is the

[48:24] typical workload of a

[48:28] caseworker they are assigned 1f

[48:30] children for permanency planning

[48:34] cases so give or take with

[48:36] siblings you're looking at

[48:38] maybe7 to 8 cases but it does

[48:40] vary but we can definitely get

[48:40] some some facts for you

[48:42] but it's 1f children for

[48:43] assignment

[48:46] further questions

[48:52] just to follow up so the

[48:54] recommendation by the monitor is

[48:54] just that a recommendation that

[48:56] then goes into a report by DHS

[48:58] I'm sure that that's compared

[49:00] with maybeassa is this where

[49:02] casa would be involved and then

[49:06] the judge takes recommendations

[49:08] reports from DHSassa direct

[49:10] testimony before making any

[49:10] further determinations as to

[49:14] the safety or future of that

[49:14] child is that all correct

[49:16] correct the monitor if it was a

[49:18] family member, hopefully they

[49:20] would be sharing what they're

[49:22] seeing with the worker and then

[49:22] the worker could take that in

[49:24] combination with provider

[49:25] reports and things like that to

[49:26] then put in the report for the

[49:26] court

[49:32] do you see any failings within

[49:33] the system that you would

[49:36] recommend within your you know

[49:38] purview as the deputy director

[49:39] over oversight of this again

[49:41] with the policy goal of ensuring

[49:42] that we have protection of

[49:44] children that could be in

[49:44] precarious situations

[49:48] think that's a difficult

[49:50] question. I think we're

[49:52] always looking to improve our

[49:54] practice as a state and as an

[49:55] agency

[49:58] you know case by case everything

[50:00] looks a little bit different but

[50:02] to say today I know of children

[50:02] or families that have been

[50:04] impacted by this that's a

[50:06] hard question to ask but

[50:07] something we're continuously

[50:10] self-ref reflecting on to

[50:12] improve practice for the

[50:12] children and for their

[50:13] safety.

[50:19] how is so you said 1f kids is

[50:21] the you know assigned workload

[50:22] or try to be a are we able to

[50:26] continue on with the

[50:28] employment's needs to meet that

[50:29] does it get overloaded

[50:30] sometimes? What does that look

[50:32] like as far as budgetary as well

[50:34] as actual staffing it definitely

[50:36] fluctuates region by region

[50:38] we have ive regions so if you

[50:40] have a more stable workforce you

[50:42] do see us meeting that workload

[50:45] standard more easily I'd

[50:48] have to get I mean we we could

[50:48] get you some numbers on where

[50:50] we're at with workload standards

[50:51] for the state if that's

[50:51] required

[50:54] further questions in committee

[51:00] say no Senator Hicks thank you

[51:01] deputy director you so much

[51:14] thank you thank you so much

[51:16] megan for for being with us

[51:18] today. we are now going to

[51:18] hear from the office of the

[51:22] attorney general we have Miguel

[51:24] Mojica a victim advocate and I

[51:26] don't know if they're going to

[51:28] present together or separate but

[51:30] we also have myel solarzano

[51:32] who is a program certification

[51:34] manner manager with the attorney

[51:36] general's office. thank you so

[51:36] much for joining us today.

[51:49] there we go thank you all

[51:50] first off I want to thank you

[51:52] Senator Hicks and members of the

[51:54] committee for this opportunity

[51:54] for our office to

[51:56] talk a little bit about

[51:58] certification what that looks

[52:00] like it's just some safety and

[52:02] accountability measures we have

[52:03] currently for the types of

[52:06] programs that we certify my name

[52:06] is Miguel Mojica I'm the

[52:08] certification manager for

[52:10] batters intervention programs

[52:13] today I'm joined with a myel

[52:14] soarno I'm the program

[52:15] certification manager withinassu

[52:17] so between the two of us we

[52:20] handle certification across

[52:22] those two pro batters

[52:23] intervention domestic violence

[52:24] sexual assault programs and then

[52:26] human trafficking programs so

[52:28] between the three types of

[52:30] certifications we have over70

[52:32] types over 70 programs in the

[52:36] state so very well familiar

[52:38] with certification starting

[52:39] new programs and then you'll

[52:40] hear a little bit about

[52:42] existing measures to keep

[52:43] programs certified as well.

[52:49] so today before we kind of dive

[52:50] into our slides just giving a

[52:52] little roadmap of what today's

[52:54] going to look like and what

[52:54] we're gonna talk about we're

[52:56] gonna go over a little bit of

[53:00] existing framework that is

[53:02] within our office that holds

[53:04] or that presents standards for

[53:06] us to certify programs we'll

[53:08] also talk about the existing

[53:10] standards in place for those

[53:12] programs to offer services

[53:14] we're gonna talk about what the

[53:15] actual process looks like to

[53:15] become certified in

[53:18] a very brief manner. we could

[53:20] talk about this for an hour

[53:22] easily but for the sake of

[53:24] time we'll give you just a very

[53:24] quick general overview of that

[53:28] process we'll also get to talk

[53:30] about some of what we consider

[53:32] our most important standards

[53:34] in place that whole document is

[53:35] important but today I think for

[53:37] the purpose of today's

[53:38] conversation we really want to

[53:40] look at what it takes to measure

[53:42] safety whether that's supervised

[53:45] visitation or our certified DBSA

[53:45] programs so

[53:48] talk through some of those

[53:50] standards and then just the

[53:51] overall importance of what

[53:52] certification looks like so

[53:56] starting out with the framework

[53:58] of our office our work is

[54:00] governed specifically by the

[54:04] administrative code OACitle75

[54:06] chapter one and chapter fif

[54:08] specifically for DBSA programs

[54:10] there's other corresponding

[54:12] chapters of course for

[54:12] depending on the certification

[54:14] type but today we'll talk about

[54:16] DBSA programs specifically

[54:18] and again domestic violence

[54:20] sexual assault we have many many

[54:22] acron acronyms in the world of

[54:23] victim services so

[54:24] starting with chapter one

[54:26] this really outlines

[54:30] key terms you'll different

[54:32] certification types the

[54:34] timelines what it takes to

[54:36] actually file an application

[54:38] through our office and it

[54:40] also clarifies that

[54:42] certification is a license so

[54:45] very rigid requirements for

[54:46] anyone interested in applying

[54:48] for certification so you will

[54:50] hear about what it takes to

[54:50] become certified but just know

[54:54] that it's licensed and

[54:54] just like any other license

[54:56] that's issued by the state

[54:57] there are rigid

[54:57] requirements

[55:00] specifically for chapter 1f

[55:04] you'll see scattered out through

[55:06] this section different

[55:08] program requirements that can

[55:10] be anything from the facility

[55:12] itself where they'll be

[55:14] providing services documentation

[55:16] standards how they're actually

[55:18] documenting the services that

[55:20] are being provided by that

[55:22] program training all of these

[55:23] are defined within their own

[55:24] subchapters I mean this is

[55:26] probably a20 to30 ppage document

[55:30] that outlines all the

[55:30] expectations that our office has

[55:31] for these

[55:34] programs assessment

[55:36] background confidentiality just

[55:38] the main gist is that it's a

[55:41] very concise document that

[55:42] outlines the expectations of

[55:43] those programs

[55:48] this is the certification

[55:50] process mapped out and as I said

[55:52] a very general version of that

[55:54] I could probably add another

[55:56] 10 boxes here but it starts out

[56:00] with an application so from

[56:02] the very beginning when we're

[56:02] having a conversation with

[56:04] someone who wants to provide

[56:07] DBSA services whether that be

[56:08] crisis intervention or shelter

[56:12] services we need to get a get an

[56:14] idea of who's talking to us who

[56:15] is

[56:16] who's this program that wants to

[56:18] provide these services so this

[56:20] application's going to ask for

[56:22] all sorts of organizational

[56:24] information we're gonna want to

[56:26] see their if they're a

[56:26] business registration as a

[56:28] business entity or documents of

[56:31] incorporation that determines

[56:32] there are nonprofit very just

[56:34] procedural organizational

[56:36] information so there's lots

[56:38] of back and forth at the

[56:40] beginning we have conversations

[56:42] with them either in person or

[56:44] virtually to map out those

[56:45] expectations in that

[56:46] way they understand what they're

[56:50] sending in from that point we

[56:52] would review this application,

[56:54] make sure it is deemed to be

[56:55] complete that they've provided

[56:57] everything upfront just that

[56:58] original or that first off

[57:00] the policies and procedures that

[57:02] they have an idea of these are

[57:03] the services we're gonna to

[57:03] provide

[57:06] after that we move into

[57:10] review so we would schedule a

[57:12] review to be conducted in person

[57:14] at this facility that's when we

[57:16] actually get to review policies

[57:18] procedures start to finish we

[57:20] see who's going to be providing

[57:22] the services we talked to the

[57:24] staff members we get an idea of

[57:25] their board

[57:28] training just all the upfront

[57:30] necessities that they would need

[57:31] to have in place in order to

[57:32] operate a successful program

[57:33] so we would review

[57:36] all those things from that point

[57:38] that goes into the on site

[57:40] review which I mentioned a

[57:42] little bit to take it a step

[57:44] further we want to see what

[57:44] implementation is going to look

[57:47] like for us to go to a crisis

[57:48] center we're going to want to

[57:52] see that they have a24 hour line

[57:53] available we want to make sure

[57:54] that they have clothing on site

[57:56] all the necessities that these

[57:59] the victims are going to need at

[58:01] the time of services that's when

[58:02] safety measures also come up as

[58:03] well we're going to look at the

[58:04] location

[58:06] of this facility we want to make

[58:08] sure that these services are

[58:10] confidential at any point for

[58:12] the victims so it's a very

[58:14] important part for us to really

[58:16] get a clear idea of what's

[58:17] happening here with this program

[58:21] from there once we've had the

[58:24] opportunity to review their

[58:28] policies look at their physical

[58:30] location that's when we get to

[58:32] make a compliance determination

[58:34] so without getting into all the

[58:36] different numbers of percentages

[58:36] that they have to meet in a

[58:39] nutshell they have to meet a

[58:41] specific percentage that allows

[58:43] them to gain that certification

[58:46] status so with that they

[58:48] would be given that temporary or

[58:49] condition

[58:52] al status to provide services

[58:54] that's not the end of this

[58:55] process that's actually what I

[58:56] would consider the first most

[58:58] important beginning of it

[58:59] because that's when natural

[59:00] services start and where all

[59:02] those safety measures have to be

[59:04] taken they have to take place

[59:07] and so we would have that

[59:08] conversation with them make

[59:10] sure that they're setting

[59:12] themselves up for success we

[59:14] have a very strict 100%

[59:16] compliance requirement at the

[59:18] end of this process so starting

[59:19] out

[59:20] of course there's going to be

[59:22] room for maybe there's a

[59:24] training missed or you know some

[59:26] documents that need to be

[59:28] corrected so there there's

[59:28] there's room for those

[59:30] conversations and what we would

[59:32] call deficiencies you know we

[59:34] send out reports but by the

[59:36] end of it we want to make sure

[59:38] that this program is completely

[59:42] 100% compliant that way we have

[59:44] the confidence to give our

[59:46] offices stamp of approval and

[59:46] full certification that this

[59:48] program is following all those

[59:50] standards that I mentioned in

[59:51] chapter fif.

[59:54] so from there that would lead

[59:56] into the oversight role where

[59:58] there's continued compliance

[1:00:00] it's this this process really

[1:00:02] doesn't ever I'll say it has a

[1:00:04] finish point for the sake of our

[1:00:05] programs that want to get to the

[1:00:06] end to the finish line if we

[1:00:08] told them there wasn't a finish

[1:00:08] line I don't think we'd get very

[1:00:11] many people to apply but

[1:00:14] compliance is ongoing there's

[1:00:16] conversations whether those are

[1:00:17] meetings that our office

[1:00:19] hosts conversations with

[1:00:20] executive directors it's

[1:00:23] ongoing so we just want to make

[1:00:25] sure that our programs are

[1:00:27] taking these standards seriously

[1:00:29] and that safety is always

[1:00:30] considered we'll kind of move

[1:00:32] into what some of those

[1:00:34] standards look like and what

[1:00:35] they can actually address

[1:00:40] so now that we have talked a bit

[1:00:42] about the regulatory framework

[1:00:42] surrounding the certification

[1:00:44] process. I think it's important

[1:00:46] for us to discuss why that

[1:00:46] framework matters

[1:00:48] specifically when it comes to

[1:00:50] safety and accountability

[1:00:52] particularly when working

[1:00:54] with vulnerable populations and

[1:00:54] what certification allows us to

[1:00:56] do is take something that is as

[1:00:58] important and but sometimes

[1:01:00] broad as safety and turn it

[1:01:02] into specific expectations and

[1:01:04] so echoing what Miguel had

[1:01:06] said earlier and we are able to

[1:01:07] do that with the language we

[1:01:07] have set in

[1:01:08] the standards and criteria for

[1:01:10] all of our certified providers

[1:01:12] and so we've highlighted a

[1:01:14] few different key areas for sake

[1:01:16] of brevity in this presentation

[1:01:17] we haven't cited the specific

[1:01:19] standards that we have set but

[1:01:20] you know different key areas

[1:01:22] would include physical safety of

[1:01:24] the location where services are

[1:01:27] being provided to survivors

[1:01:28] reaching out to receive those

[1:01:30] services and we're looking at

[1:01:31] different things you know

[1:01:32] facility requirements the the

[1:01:34] standards are pretty

[1:01:34] straightforward about what's

[1:01:36] required there and some of

[1:01:37] the language we have said

[1:01:40] is a bit more black and white

[1:01:42] concrete about what our

[1:01:44] expectations are and you know

[1:01:45] when it comes to approved fire

[1:01:46] inspection that's pretty

[1:01:47] straightforward about what we

[1:01:50] are requiring versus emergency

[1:01:52] procedures what an agency has

[1:01:54] set and may look different we

[1:01:56] still require you know they have

[1:01:58] a plan for dealing with bomb

[1:01:59] threats intruder drills,

[1:02:00] different things but

[1:02:02] depending on the agency you know

[1:02:02] they're going to have different

[1:02:04] number of staff, different

[1:02:06] layout of their facilities and

[1:02:07] and so it is going to look

[1:02:07] different depending

[1:02:10] on which agency we're looking at

[1:02:12] another area of policies and

[1:02:14] procedures we have language set

[1:02:14] there and making sure that it's

[1:02:16] consistent so there are

[1:02:18] protocols set up for safety

[1:02:20] concerns and incidents that may

[1:02:24] occur and training as well

[1:02:26] for the staff members who are

[1:02:27] providing direct or nondirect

[1:02:30] care to the clients who are

[1:02:32] reaching out for services and we

[1:02:34] have in our standard drink

[1:02:36] criteria it's set up we have

[1:02:37] specific training topic require

[1:02:40] ment s that each agency has to

[1:02:42] go over but again this is

[1:02:44] gonna look different depending

[1:02:45] on the organization so agency A

[1:02:46] may have an in-house training

[1:02:48] that they've developed that

[1:02:48] meets that criteria versus

[1:02:52] agency B may elect to utilize a

[1:02:52] state or federal training that

[1:02:54] they think works well for their

[1:02:57] staff and different ways that

[1:02:58] we're able to monitor compliance

[1:03:00] with those standards and you

[1:03:01] know as we're going out and

[1:03:02] conducting these on site reviews

[1:03:04] it's looking through the

[1:03:06] personnel files log trainings

[1:03:07] or training logs I apolog

[1:03:10] ize having conversation with

[1:03:14] the staff and executive director

[1:03:15] it really looks different but

[1:03:16] we have different mechanisms in

[1:03:18] place for being able to monitor

[1:03:20] compliance with that language

[1:03:22] again I think oversight really

[1:03:24] the biggest piece fortgen

[1:03:26] criteria we are able to go in

[1:03:28] and have a mechanism set in

[1:03:30] place for being able to

[1:03:32] ensure that

[1:03:34] the agency is operating in a way

[1:03:36] that is in alignment with the

[1:03:37] expectations set forward

[1:03:38] by our office

[1:03:43] and so then we jump over into

[1:03:44] certification as a safety and

[1:03:46] accountability framework and

[1:03:48] I believe that Oklahoma's

[1:03:50] existing certification model and

[1:03:52] we do provide a framework to hit

[1:03:54] a variety of different

[1:03:54] important factors but we wanted

[1:03:56] to highlight these five and

[1:03:58] consistency, safety, quality,

[1:04:00] accountability and continuous

[1:04:02] improvement so with

[1:04:04] consistency again just a common

[1:04:06] baseline of expectations that we

[1:04:08] have for the agencies it is

[1:04:09] going to look different in

[1:04:09] practice but

[1:04:12] we have maintained a close level

[1:04:14] of communication with all of our

[1:04:15] certified providers to ensure

[1:04:17] that once they are certified and

[1:04:18] have that stamp of approval from

[1:04:22] our office. we know that the

[1:04:22] services being provided are

[1:04:24] consistent and in alignment with

[1:04:26] the expectations set forward

[1:04:28] before them and same with safety

[1:04:30] and the standards are are very

[1:04:33] clear as to what we require

[1:04:35] there quality of services and if

[1:04:38] you go to the southwest portion

[1:04:38] of the state and seek out

[1:04:39] services through one of our

[1:04:39] certified providers

[1:04:42] there and we can ensure that the

[1:04:44] quality of services is going to

[1:04:45] be the same as if you were to go

[1:04:46] to the northwestern part of the

[1:04:48] state and seek out services

[1:04:50] through a provider there same

[1:04:52] with accountability against

[1:04:54] standards and criteria really

[1:04:56] has developed a mechanism for us

[1:04:58] to be able to evaluate and

[1:05:00] monitor compliance as that's

[1:05:02] ongoing and continuous

[1:05:04] improvement umiguiel and I have

[1:05:06] a great working relationship I

[1:05:08] would say with all 30 of our

[1:05:09] certified DVSA providers

[1:05:09] throughout the

[1:05:13] state and we are easy to get in

[1:05:13] contact with

[1:05:16] and we are consistently

[1:05:18] providing any technical

[1:05:20] assistance and corrective action

[1:05:24] when needed and so we are

[1:05:25] continuously having follow up

[1:05:26] with all of the providers who

[1:05:28] are providing services

[1:05:29] throughout the state of Oklahoma

[1:05:36] and so again I know Miguel had

[1:05:38] echoed it earlier for sake of

[1:05:40] time we condensed all of this

[1:05:42] information down but we are

[1:05:43] more than happy to answer any

[1:05:45] questions or we've provided our

[1:05:47] contact information so if at any

[1:05:48] point you have any questions or

[1:05:50] concerns we would love to get in

[1:05:51] contact with you and help answer

[1:05:51] those. so thank you

[1:05:52] for your time.

[1:05:54] en ator Hicks

[1:05:56] members of the committee

[1:06:00] questions

[1:06:05] appreciate you guys

[1:06:08] participating for the attorney

[1:06:08] general's office and review of

[1:06:10] what the certifications are for

[1:06:12] these that are actually out in

[1:06:13] the communities

[1:06:16] Senator Hicks you recognized for

[1:06:17] introduction of your next

[1:06:17] speaker.

[1:06:20] thank you again so much for

[1:06:22] providing that insight because

[1:06:24] now we're actually going to hear

[1:06:26] from one of the DVSA providers

[1:06:30] so the YWCA is joining us

[1:06:32] today. this is uhimmoha Mosher

[1:06:33] the senior director of domestic

[1:06:35] violenceolenceervices and

[1:06:37] Anitayidberg the senior director

[1:06:38] of residential services

[1:06:39] welcomelcome.

[1:06:39] good afternoon

[1:06:44] thank you senator Hicks members

[1:06:45] of the committee we appreciate

[1:06:47] the opportunity to share the

[1:06:48] perspective of a domestic

[1:06:50] violence victim service

[1:06:52] provider. Our main point today

[1:06:54] is simple supervised visitation

[1:06:56] is not automatically safe

[1:06:57] visitation.

[1:07:00] in domestic violence cases

[1:07:02] safety depends on whether the

[1:07:03] process recognizes coercive

[1:07:06] control, addresses risk before

[1:07:08] during and after contact and has

[1:07:09] meaningful structure and

[1:07:09] accountability

[1:07:14] to explain what we mean it is

[1:07:16] important to distinguish high

[1:07:18] conflict co parenting from

[1:07:20] coercive controlling violence

[1:07:22] when practical challenge is that

[1:07:23] highrisk domestic violence can

[1:07:25] be framed as high conflict co

[1:07:27] parenting those are not

[1:07:27] necessarily the same dynamic

[1:07:30] High conflict may involve

[1:07:32] disagreement, poor communication

[1:07:34] or hostility often centered on

[1:07:37] difficulty managing a co

[1:07:37] parenting relationship.

[1:07:40] but coercive controlling

[1:07:42] violence sometimes described in

[1:07:44] the research as intimate partner

[1:07:46] terrorism is a pattern of

[1:07:48] domestic violence in which one

[1:07:50] partner uses abuse threats

[1:07:52] stalking, intimidation and

[1:07:54] children or other systems to

[1:07:56] dominate the other parent and

[1:07:57] maintain power and control.

[1:08:02] for example an abuser may use

[1:08:04] information obtained through the

[1:08:06] children repeated court filings

[1:08:08] or required parent communication

[1:08:11] to maintain access to and

[1:08:12] control over the victim. When

[1:08:14] that is the underlying dynamic

[1:08:16] practices designed simply to

[1:08:17] improve

[1:08:20] communication or encourage co

[1:08:22] parenting can create additional

[1:08:22] risk to the adult victim and the

[1:08:23] children.

[1:08:28] and in fact separation

[1:08:31] from a domestic violence

[1:08:34] relationship does not end

[1:08:34] domestic violence in the

[1:08:36] coercive control. In fact

[1:08:38] research tells us that

[1:08:40] separation is the most dangerous

[1:08:42] time for a victim. There are

[1:08:44] some studies that find that the

[1:08:46] increased risk is up to two

[1:08:47] years post separation.

[1:08:50] some of the tactics of post

[1:08:52] separation abuse can include

[1:08:54] psychological legal, economic

[1:08:58] systems based abuse including

[1:08:59] the weaponization of children

[1:09:02] so custody, visitation and

[1:09:05] exchanges can create predictable

[1:09:06] points of continued access and

[1:09:07] risk.

[1:09:10] this context is really important

[1:09:13] to consider sometimes victims

[1:09:16] behavior that is actually rooted

[1:09:18] in safety can be misread as

[1:09:20] hostility or an unwillingness to

[1:09:21] co parent.

[1:09:26] such as of waiting direct

[1:09:27] contact protecting their

[1:09:28] address, requesting separate

[1:09:32] arrivals strictly following a

[1:09:34] court order they actually may be

[1:09:36] strategies for victims to reduce

[1:09:37] access and stay safe.

[1:09:41] I remember working with a victim

[1:09:43] where we safety planned around

[1:09:45] exchange of children. We talked

[1:09:47] about not passing the child's

[1:09:49] belongings back and forth

[1:09:50] because even something as simple

[1:09:54] as a jacket or a lunchbox could

[1:09:54] become another reason for

[1:09:55] contact.

[1:09:58] What looked like a disagreement

[1:10:00] over belongings was for her

[1:10:01] another avenue of access and

[1:10:01] control.

[1:10:05] and in domestic violence cases

[1:10:05] the safety

[1:10:08] of children is directly

[1:10:10] correlated to the safety of the

[1:10:11] adult victim.

[1:10:14] So visitation cannot be

[1:10:16] evaluated only by whether a

[1:10:18] child appears physically safe

[1:10:20] during a visit. We also have to

[1:10:22] be asking whether the

[1:10:24] arrangement creates additional

[1:10:26] risk or continued control over

[1:10:27] the non abusive parent.

[1:10:30] We recently conducted a

[1:10:32] listening session in our

[1:10:33] domestic violence shelter

[1:10:36] one survivor said dropping your

[1:10:38] kids off to someone that hurts

[1:10:38] you is scary.

[1:10:42] for a survivor an exchange is

[1:10:44] not necessarily a routine

[1:10:45] parenting handoff

[1:10:48] but it is also can be a required

[1:10:50] point of access to the person

[1:10:51] who hurt them

[1:10:54] and that is why safety has to be

[1:10:56] built into the structure not

[1:10:58] assumed because contact is court

[1:10:59] ordered

[1:11:00] and that's gonna bring us to the

[1:11:01] next question

[1:11:04] what exactly do we mean by

[1:11:05] supervised and who is doing the

[1:11:05] supervision?

[1:11:14] I don't know if you're able to

[1:11:15] advance the line

[1:11:30] just to preserve time I will

[1:11:31] just keep talking and then

[1:11:32] hopefully the slides will catch

[1:11:33] up to us

[1:11:36] but supervised can mean

[1:11:38] different things. It can mean

[1:11:40] informal supervision that might

[1:11:41] look like a family member or a

[1:11:42] friend who has very little

[1:11:43] domestic violenceific training

[1:11:48] limited structure and also

[1:11:49] includes the potential for

[1:11:50] family bias or pressure.

[1:11:54] and our listening session that

[1:11:55] we conducted recently, one woman

[1:11:56] described having to turn her

[1:11:58] children over to the abuses of

[1:12:00] partners parents for visits and

[1:12:03] she said it made me physically

[1:12:03] ill every time

[1:12:08] that is an important reminder

[1:12:09] that simply having another adult

[1:12:11] present does not necessarily

[1:12:11] create safety

[1:12:16] who is supervising matters and

[1:12:18] it matters whether that person

[1:12:19] understands coercive control

[1:12:22] stalking, confidentiality and

[1:12:23] safe exchange practices

[1:12:26] and even when supervision is

[1:12:28] appropriate staff can only

[1:12:29] observe what happens within the

[1:12:30] visit itself. Risk might still

[1:12:34] happen before after or during

[1:12:34] that contact.

[1:12:40] Risk does not necessarily begin

[1:12:41] and end during the supervised

[1:12:43] visit as Anita just stated it

[1:12:44] can arise during the exchange,

[1:12:46] the transportation the

[1:12:48] communication before or after

[1:12:50] the visit or through information

[1:12:50] and access gained during the

[1:12:51] visit.

[1:12:54] These risks do not always look

[1:12:56] dramatic. In fact coercion is

[1:12:58] often subtle. for example, a

[1:12:59] person may wait near the

[1:13:00] visitation site to identify the

[1:13:02] victim's vehicle or learn a

[1:13:03] routine

[1:13:06] Technology can also be used to

[1:13:06] track or stalk the victim

[1:13:08] through a GPS tracker in a

[1:13:10] diaper bag. the location

[1:13:12] services on a child's smartwat

[1:13:14] or access to shared accounts.

[1:13:16] Children may be used to gather

[1:13:18] information or carry messages a

[1:13:19] child may be asked where the

[1:13:21] survivor lives, works or spends

[1:13:24] time and a phrase a gift or a

[1:13:25] gesture that appears harmless to

[1:13:27] the supervisor could actually

[1:13:28] have a threatening meaning based

[1:13:30] on the history of abuse like a

[1:13:31] toy weapon

[1:13:34] an incidentfree visit can tell

[1:13:35] us that someone was able to

[1:13:37] follow the rules within a highly

[1:13:40] structured setting. It cannot by

[1:13:40] itself tell us whether the

[1:13:42] underlying pattern of coercion

[1:13:44] stalking intimidation or abuse

[1:13:46] has changed outside that

[1:13:48] setting. These examples are why

[1:13:50] supervised visitation cannot be

[1:13:52] treated as a one time placement

[1:13:52] decision. it requires

[1:13:54] intentional safeguards and

[1:13:55] ongoing attention to changing

[1:13:56] risk.

[1:13:58] if we're going to use supervised

[1:14:00] visitation in domestic violence

[1:14:02] cases the system requires

[1:14:04] intentional and ongoing

[1:14:06] safeguards. First screening must

[1:14:08] go beyond whether there has been

[1:14:09] a reported incident of physical

[1:14:11] violence. it should assess

[1:14:13] coercive control stalking,

[1:14:15] lethality concerns post

[1:14:17] separation abuse technology

[1:14:18] facilitated abuse and the use of

[1:14:19] the children.

[1:14:22] Second risk must be reassessed

[1:14:24] over time. An intake assessment

[1:14:26] is only a snapshotreats stalking

[1:14:28] behavior and access to

[1:14:30] information can change.

[1:14:32] Reassessment should not mean

[1:14:34] that the supervision ends simply

[1:14:34] because time has passed without

[1:14:38] a documented incident. Finally

[1:14:39] programs need trained staff,

[1:14:41] careful documentation and formal

[1:14:42] partnerships with domestic

[1:14:44] violence victim service

[1:14:46] providers so that safety

[1:14:46] concerns are recognized and

[1:14:47] acted upon.

[1:14:50] especially where there has been

[1:14:52] significant violence stalking,

[1:14:54] coercive control or ongoing

[1:14:55] intimidation and fear, the

[1:14:56] question should be whether the

[1:14:58] abuser has demonstrated

[1:15:00] meaningful behavior change and

[1:15:02] taken responsibility not simply

[1:15:03] whether they were able to

[1:15:05] contain inappropriate behavior

[1:15:06] while being supervised and

[1:15:07] monitored

[1:15:09] Decisions about reducing

[1:15:11] supervision should be based on a

[1:15:14] clear individualized indicator

[1:15:15] as safety and change rather than

[1:15:18] a series of uneventful events

[1:15:19] these measures help ensure that

[1:15:21] safety concerns are recognized

[1:15:22] and addressed not minimized as

[1:15:24] ordinary co parenting conflict

[1:15:27] but safeguards and assessments

[1:15:30] only matter if concerns lead to

[1:15:31] a meaningful response that

[1:15:33] brings us to what survivors

[1:15:35] rather identified most clearly

[1:15:36] and that is accountability.

[1:15:41] it is really important that we

[1:15:43] center survivor voices at this

[1:15:43] discussion

[1:15:48] Throughout my time working with

[1:15:50] victims over the last couple of

[1:15:51] decades and based on a recent

[1:15:53] listening session specific to

[1:15:53] this topic

[1:15:59] we ask and we assess what is

[1:16:02] going to make visitation feel

[1:16:03] safer for your survivors of

[1:16:04] domestic violence and the

[1:16:06] clearest theme is

[1:16:06] accountability.

[1:16:08] and when they talk about

[1:16:09] accountability

[1:16:12] they mean what happens if

[1:16:14] someone uses the child to gather

[1:16:16] information. what happens is

[1:16:18] staff observe intimidation or

[1:16:19] concerning changes in behavior

[1:16:22] what happens when the survivor

[1:16:24] reports news stocking or threads

[1:16:26] c co un t ability means

[1:16:28] addressing those concerns with a

[1:16:30] meaningful response, not simply

[1:16:32] that the next visit will proceed

[1:16:33] unchanged

[1:16:36] and that is why success should

[1:16:38] not be measured likeammmy said

[1:16:40] by only when whether a visit

[1:16:43] occurs it should be measured by

[1:16:44] whether the structure reduces

[1:16:47] physical and emotional risk for

[1:16:48] both the nonoffending parent and

[1:16:49] the child.

[1:16:52] and from the domestic violence

[1:16:54] field we would we would urge

[1:16:54] this following four things

[1:16:56] the importance of

[1:16:58] differentiating coercive control

[1:16:59] from high conflict parenting

[1:17:02] the use of domestic violence

[1:17:06] informed screening and ongoing

[1:17:06] risk assessment

[1:17:09] building specialized domestic

[1:17:10] violence expertise and

[1:17:12] partnerships with victim service

[1:17:14] providers and measuring the

[1:17:16] safety and success by whether

[1:17:16] the structure reduces that

[1:17:18] physical and emotional safety

[1:17:20] risk for the survivor and their

[1:17:22] child not simply whether a visit

[1:17:23] occurred.

[1:17:26] so the question is not only

[1:17:26] whether contact can be

[1:17:28] supervised is whether contact

[1:17:30] can be structured without

[1:17:31] becoming another avenue for

[1:17:31] abuse.

[1:17:36] What questions might there be

[1:17:42] thank you so much

[1:17:46] I was writing everything down as

[1:17:47] fast as they could

[1:17:50] if you could go back to the who

[1:17:51] is supervising slide

[1:17:59] I think this really highlights

[1:18:02] why we're gathered here today

[1:18:05] and and as we were building

[1:18:07] out our agenda and I'm grateful

[1:18:10] that you all agreed to come

[1:18:11] and present from the research

[1:18:14] that you all collect what is the

[1:18:16] most meaningful change I mean I

[1:18:19] I wrote down your last four

[1:18:22] recommendations from the ladies

[1:18:23] and so I'm just wondering if you

[1:18:26] were to recommend a policy

[1:18:26] change specifically

[1:18:28] around this what would that look

[1:18:29] like?

[1:18:35] I think the policy changes that

[1:18:36] we would really consider and

[1:18:38] recommend are really rooted in

[1:18:39] these four areas

[1:18:44] en er hicks revolt

[1:18:48] thank you Mr Chair and so then I

[1:18:50] mean on the question of

[1:18:51] accountability

[1:18:56] when the women were expressing

[1:18:57] that there should be

[1:18:59] accountability if there are

[1:19:02] violations you know that

[1:19:04] would escalate behavior or

[1:19:06] intimidation or continued

[1:19:08] harassment. what does that

[1:19:10] accountability look like and

[1:19:10] from whom

[1:19:12] I think

[1:19:18] sometimes taking a break from

[1:19:20] having access to the abusive

[1:19:23] parent might be the most helpful

[1:19:23] thing to the child.

[1:19:24] and that is not

[1:19:26] said lightly

[1:19:28] but

[1:19:33] if the potential for safety

[1:19:36] to be compromised is directly

[1:19:38] tied to the abuser having access

[1:19:40] to the children I think there

[1:19:42] are times when it is appropriate

[1:19:44] to suspend visitation and not

[1:19:45] just rely on supervision.

[1:19:49] senator hicks for another

[1:19:54] other members of the committee

[1:20:00] so in the situation that you're

[1:20:01] saying you know

[1:20:04] limitation and or cessation of

[1:20:07] visitation how how would you go

[1:20:08] about bringing that evidence and

[1:20:10] who would be responsible in the

[1:20:11] cases that you're proposing this

[1:20:11] in

[1:20:14] because I'm sure you know are

[1:20:16] these DHS cases where we're

[1:20:18] talking state custody or these

[1:20:20] general divorce family law cases

[1:20:20] that you're

[1:20:22] recommending this policy change

[1:20:23] for

[1:20:26] I think just general cases is

[1:20:27] kind of what I had in mind. I

[1:20:29] don't know about you Anita and I

[1:20:30] think we're looking for

[1:20:32] meaningful change we're looking

[1:20:34] for an abuser taking

[1:20:36] accountability for their actions

[1:20:38] and recognizing that what they

[1:20:39] have done has caused harm to

[1:20:41] their family and taking specific

[1:20:42] steps to stop causing that harm

[1:20:46] and I think the accountability

[1:20:48] can extend to both DhS and

[1:20:52] family courts and I also

[1:20:54] think that accountability looks

[1:20:54] like

[1:20:58] victims not being punished by

[1:21:01] systems who are choosing tour

[1:21:06] utilize protective capacity to

[1:21:07] keep themselves and their child

[1:21:10] safe but maybe through the lens

[1:21:10] of a court order it looks like

[1:21:12] they are being uncooperative or

[1:21:16] not abiding by a court order and

[1:21:18] then they they face a lot of

[1:21:20] consequences negative

[1:21:20] consequences from systems

[1:21:24] or the domestic violence is not

[1:21:24] acknowledged and it just is

[1:21:25] labeled as a high conflict case.

[1:21:30] so in those situations what is

[1:21:32] your recommendation under the

[1:21:34] current system for how this

[1:21:36] would be brought forward and

[1:21:38] just a court filing of a motion

[1:21:40] in the civil case is a

[1:21:42] recommendation of filing police

[1:21:44] reports because of abuse how

[1:21:44] would those be investigated?

[1:21:46] what would be the next steps

[1:21:47] within

[1:21:49] I think we'd like to work with

[1:21:49] Judge Byer

[1:21:52] and judgedge conyers on on some

[1:21:53] of those recommendations

[1:21:58] and then going back I guess to

[1:22:00] what Senator Hicks had brought

[1:22:02] up about who would be supervised

[1:22:04] in there you know who qualifies

[1:22:05] as supervised

[1:22:06] for those visitations

[1:22:12] do you see that there is a need

[1:22:14] for no family involvement that

[1:22:16] that can't be an option. how

[1:22:18] would other people get

[1:22:20] interested into this or we get

[1:22:22] them in especially you know

[1:22:23] within budget constraints that

[1:22:24] we have

[1:22:26] think this is where the victim

[1:22:29] voice comes into play and asking

[1:22:32] the the non abusing parent who

[1:22:33] is safe who is a safe supervisor

[1:22:40] I think family can be safe

[1:22:41] supervisors but I think the

[1:22:42] importance of assessing that

[1:22:44] very thoroughly and working

[1:22:46] collaboratively with other

[1:22:48] systems who have intersected

[1:22:50] with the family can really be

[1:22:54] eye opening and telling to some

[1:22:55] of the potential risks and

[1:22:55] benefits that might go along

[1:22:56] with that

[1:23:00] any further questions

[1:23:03] comments Senator Hicks

[1:23:07] thank you Mr Chair thank you all

[1:23:10] so much for joining us. I

[1:23:11] know this is not a light topic

[1:23:13] for a Monday afternoon so

[1:23:14] again I appreciate you all

[1:23:17] sharing your expertise. next

[1:23:19] we're joined by Gwendolyn

[1:23:20] Clegg

[1:23:22] with the office of Family

[1:23:23] Representation

[1:23:38] there you go

[1:23:43] thank you senator Hicks and

[1:23:45] members of the committee

[1:23:47] thank you for inviting me today

[1:23:49] to explain what the Oklahoma

[1:23:50] office the family representation

[1:23:52] is what we do what we were

[1:23:54] entrusted with in our mission

[1:23:56] from the legislature. The

[1:23:57] Oklahoma Office of Family

[1:24:00] Representation came into being

[1:24:02] in June of2023 when our bill

[1:24:04] made it through the

[1:24:06] legislature and we were

[1:24:09] established under Titleen

[1:24:10] Section 801 and

[1:24:13] it is the family representation

[1:24:16] advocacy actct and programme so

[1:24:18] the acronym FAP is kind of

[1:24:20] thrown around a lot and it's not

[1:24:22] an easy acronym to say correctly

[1:24:26] so we have we are a

[1:24:30] program of the administration

[1:24:32] office of the courts and the

[1:24:33] administration office of the

[1:24:35] courts contracted with legal aid

[1:24:36] Services of Oklahoma to build

[1:24:38] the statewide office of parent

[1:24:42] and childpresentation and AOC

[1:24:44] asked that we brand the

[1:24:46] office with a name and with a

[1:24:48] logo and so you'll see that in a

[1:24:50] in a minute but we are the

[1:24:52] Oklahoma office the familymire

[1:24:52] representation and we are

[1:24:56] regularly referred to as OFR and

[1:24:57] I am the executive

[1:25:00] director of the Oklahoma Office

[1:25:01] of Family Representation and a

[1:25:04] little bit about me I have been

[1:25:08] practicing law for26 years um24

[1:25:09] of those years have been in

[1:25:11] juvenile deprived actions. I

[1:25:12] have represented every single

[1:25:16] side of a juvenile deprived case

[1:25:18] except for as an assistant DA so

[1:25:20] I've represented mostly parents

[1:25:22] I've represented children in a

[1:25:24] very rural county in northeast

[1:25:26] Oklahoma. I have represented

[1:25:27] foster parents grandparents

[1:25:30] aunts and uncles in adoptions

[1:25:32] in a guardianships and in

[1:25:34] juvenile deprived proceedings

[1:25:42] So the Oklahoma office of Family

[1:25:44] Representation the purpose

[1:25:46] that the legislature gave us in

[1:25:48] our bill was to ensure uniform

[1:25:50] and high quality legal

[1:25:52] representation for children and

[1:25:54] indigent parents, Indian

[1:25:56] custodians and legal guardians

[1:25:58] in juvenile deprived actions

[1:26:00] only a lot of people like to ask

[1:26:01] to appoint our lawyers to

[1:26:02] adoptions and guardianships and

[1:26:05] we do not work in those areas

[1:26:05] of law

[1:26:12] OFR was needed to overcome

[1:26:14] these barriers that were rampant

[1:26:16] across the state of Oklahoma for

[1:26:18] decades which was

[1:26:20] barriers to ineffective

[1:26:22] representation where a very high

[1:26:24] caseloads for children's lawyers

[1:26:26] and parent lawyers there was a

[1:26:28] lack of centralized oversight no

[1:26:30] one oversaw what these lawyers

[1:26:32] were doing and how their

[1:26:34] representation of these families

[1:26:36] was and there was a lack of

[1:26:38] support services and practice

[1:26:40] resources for the lawyers there

[1:26:44] was a lack of appellate practice

[1:26:44] there was no performance

[1:26:46] oversight there was no complaint

[1:26:48] or complement process for the

[1:26:49] lawyers

[1:26:50] there was inadequate attorney

[1:26:52] compensation. there were no

[1:26:54] practice standards for child

[1:26:56] representation in the state of

[1:26:58] Oklahoma there were parent

[1:27:00] standards of representation but

[1:27:02] not children there was a lack

[1:27:04] of dedicated attorney

[1:27:06] recruitment there were attorney

[1:27:08] desserts in our rural areas and

[1:27:10] there were differences in rural

[1:27:12] and metro practice issues

[1:27:14] childrenldren and parents in the

[1:27:16] state of Oklahoma enjoy an

[1:27:18] Oklahoma constitutional and

[1:27:22] a statutory right to counsel in

[1:27:24] deprived cases in the trial

[1:27:24] court and the appellate courts.

[1:27:30] OFR has solved all these

[1:27:32] barriers in the counties where

[1:27:34] we are implemented the family

[1:27:35] representation and advocacy

[1:27:36] actct and programme statute

[1:27:38] requires written standards of

[1:27:40] practice which the Oklahoma

[1:27:42] Supreme task forcece that

[1:27:46] sunlighted in2024ro we have

[1:27:48] oversight of our contractors

[1:27:50] almost daily we have managing

[1:27:52] attorneys overseeing the

[1:27:54] practice of the lawyers that are

[1:27:55] under them and that we have

[1:27:56] contracted with we have support

[1:27:57] through these manag

[1:28:00] ing attorneys of our contractors

[1:28:02] we have prolific training for

[1:28:04] these contractors these

[1:28:06] contractors are required by law

[1:28:08] to have an annual performance

[1:28:10] review and they are also

[1:28:10] required under two different

[1:28:12] statutes of six hours of

[1:28:14] juvenile deprived relevantcLE

[1:28:15] each year for attorney

[1:28:15] contractors.

[1:28:21] Training is mentioned in the

[1:28:22] family representation and

[1:28:25] advocacy actct ingrame statute4

[1:28:26] times it's mentioned more than

[1:28:28] anything else in that statute.

[1:28:30] So the legislature obviously

[1:28:32] thought that was a big problem

[1:28:34] and wanted to solve it and we

[1:28:36] are here to do that so we ensure

[1:28:37] all of our attorney contractors

[1:28:40] comply with both statutes for

[1:28:42] their CLE we also make sure they

[1:28:42] comply with the Oklahoma

[1:28:43] standards of practicetice for

[1:28:44] attorneys representing parents

[1:28:46] and children those standards are

[1:28:48] on our webpage and you can find

[1:28:48] them there

[1:28:51] OFR provides high quality legal

[1:28:54] training for our contractors

[1:28:56] and when I say contractors

[1:28:57] there's another slide's gonna

[1:28:58] come up and tell you what that

[1:29:00] is but it's attorneys social

[1:29:02] workers' youth and parent

[1:29:04] mentors and so last year for

[1:29:06] state fiscal year25 we provided

[1:29:12] over 188 free CLE hours to our

[1:29:14] attorney contractors as well as

[1:29:16] our social workers and mentorsri

[1:29:18] to OFR the only way attor

[1:29:20] ney practicing juvenile deprived

[1:29:22] law could get continuing legal

[1:29:25] education was to tend the court

[1:29:26] improvement programme

[1:29:28] conference every fall that was

[1:29:30] it 12 hours and all those 12

[1:29:32] hours weren't dedicated to

[1:29:33] attorney training it was

[1:29:34] dedicated to DHS training, Icw

[1:29:38] training, judged training so

[1:29:38] even those lawyers attending

[1:29:40] there wouldn't receive tw2 solid

[1:29:43] hours of attorney training to

[1:29:44] practice in this area of law

[1:29:46] this area of law is very

[1:29:48] nuanced. there's a lot of folks

[1:29:49] that think they can practice

[1:29:49] criminal

[1:29:50] law or family law and just run

[1:29:52] into a courtroom with a file and

[1:29:54] practice this the of law you

[1:29:54] cannot do that effectively

[1:29:59] we also provide 16 hours of

[1:30:00] fundamental training for our

[1:30:02] attorney contractors and they

[1:30:04] must have that done before or

[1:30:06] during the 1st 90 days of taking

[1:30:08] a contract with us. We also

[1:30:10] provide 8+ hours of fundamental

[1:30:10] training for our social workers

[1:30:14] and our mentors and we only

[1:30:16] contract with master's level

[1:30:18] social workers for a reason.

[1:30:20] it's because of their training

[1:30:22] and expertise OFR provides

[1:30:24] additional trainings throughout

[1:30:26] the year on domestic violence

[1:30:27] housing and trauma in

[1:30:28] formed practice. Our trainings

[1:30:30] are on our website and anyone

[1:30:33] can join our trainings and

[1:30:34] some of our trainings are

[1:30:36] recorded and anyone can watch

[1:30:38] them on their own time but we

[1:30:39] can't give youclA credit if you

[1:30:40] just watch them

[1:30:46] OfR contracts like I was saying

[1:30:47] with attorneys master's level

[1:30:48] social workers and mentors to

[1:30:50] provide high effective and high

[1:30:52] quality legal representation

[1:30:54] high quality legal

[1:30:56] representation involves the use

[1:30:58] of interdisciplinary teams and

[1:31:00] interdisciplinary team for a

[1:31:02] parent is an attorney a master's

[1:31:05] level social worker and a parent

[1:31:06] mentor someone who has survived

[1:31:08] this very system and has come

[1:31:10] back around to assist a parent

[1:31:12] getting to go through this

[1:31:13] system for a youth

[1:31:15] it involves the youth attorney,

[1:31:16] a master's level social worker

[1:31:20] and a youth mentor and adult who

[1:31:22] was a child in the foster care

[1:31:24] system to help children

[1:31:26] navigate the system that they

[1:31:26] are in now the foster care

[1:31:30] system OFR is currently

[1:31:32] implemented in51 counties which

[1:31:34] equals66% of the state of

[1:31:36] Oklahomay November 1st we will

[1:31:40] implement se7 more counties and

[1:31:42] that will be leaving only 9

[1:31:43] counties left to implement so

[1:31:44] a high level of

[1:31:48] counties will be implemented by

[1:31:48] the end of this year

[1:31:52] at this time we are contracted

[1:31:54] with 133 trial attorneys,16

[1:31:57] appellate attorneys, se master

[1:31:59] social workers and 18 mentors

[1:32:01] that are comprised of parent and

[1:32:03] youth as you can see that is not

[1:32:04] enough social workers and

[1:32:06] mentors to cover the6000

[1:32:08] children that are in custodydy

[1:32:10] that if you multiplied that by

[1:32:11] two if they each had a parent

[1:32:13] that's not even enough to make a

[1:32:15] dent so we need more of those

[1:32:17] and OFR has eliminated the

[1:32:18] attorney desserts and the

[1:32:18] counties where

[1:32:21] we are implemented in region two

[1:32:24] which is southwest Oklahoma they

[1:32:28] had about 9 counties in2024 when

[1:32:30] we implemented that did not have

[1:32:32] lawyers that would come and

[1:32:32] represent parents or children

[1:32:36] it's much easier for a judge to

[1:32:37] call and ask a lawyer to

[1:32:38] represent a child but that

[1:32:40] representation was not overseen

[1:32:42] and we were unsure what was

[1:32:44] happening. there was a lot of

[1:32:46] children who were being

[1:32:48] represented by the wrong

[1:32:49] standard of care the wrong

[1:32:50] standard and model of

[1:32:52] representation in Oklahoma

[1:32:54] children enjoy the right to

[1:32:56] expressed interest

[1:32:58] representation and our rules of

[1:33:00] professional conduct dictate

[1:33:02] that children as young as ive

[1:33:03] can dictate their represent

[1:33:04] ation in their child custody

[1:33:07] matters if a child cannot

[1:33:09] express their interest of what

[1:33:10] they want their lawyer to do for

[1:33:13] them in their custody proceeding

[1:33:14] then the lawyer must use

[1:33:15] substituted judgment.

[1:33:20] and substituted judgment

[1:33:22] there's criteria in the statute

[1:33:23] for what that is it's not me

[1:33:25] living in midtown Oklahoma

[1:33:28] deciding what a child in North

[1:33:29] Tulsa would want

[1:33:32] so it is considerations for

[1:33:34] the children Oklahoma attorneys

[1:33:36] do not represent children's best

[1:33:38] interests that's what Cosa does

[1:33:38] and that's what guardian ad

[1:33:39] litems for children do.

[1:33:43] interdisciplinary teams and how

[1:33:44] do they work so an

[1:33:46] interdisciplinary team as we

[1:33:47] talked about comprised of an

[1:33:49] attorney a master's level social

[1:33:51] worker and a mentor they work

[1:33:53] together to address the

[1:33:54] conditions that brought the

[1:33:54] children into custody. they're

[1:33:56] not there to minimize the

[1:33:58] conditions they're there to

[1:34:00] understand what they are

[1:34:02] protective capacities into place

[1:34:03] get the assessments done that

[1:34:04] need to be done get the

[1:34:05] referrals done that need to be

[1:34:08] done and help the parent

[1:34:10] understand why their children

[1:34:10] came into custody and why the

[1:34:11] judge

[1:34:12] made this ruling about their

[1:34:14] conditions and help them

[1:34:15] understand the healing that

[1:34:16] needs to happen in their family

[1:34:18] so they can reunify.

[1:34:20] Interdisciplinary teams are

[1:34:22] assigned by OFR at the request

[1:34:24] of an attorney our teams work

[1:34:26] with the clients by identifying

[1:34:27] the client's strengths and needs

[1:34:28] we try to build these parents

[1:34:30] and these children up so that

[1:34:31] they can begin the healing

[1:34:32] process and accept the fact that

[1:34:34] they have to do these services

[1:34:35] in order to reunify with their

[1:34:36] family and they have to learn

[1:34:39] what the services are trying to

[1:34:40] teach them. The team use

[1:34:42] s out of court advocacy to

[1:34:44] gather information, increase

[1:34:46] communication and advocate for

[1:34:47] the client in and out of court

[1:34:49] and the mentors are key to the

[1:34:52] engagement of clients I call the

[1:34:54] mentor's first responders they

[1:34:56] are running back into the

[1:34:56] burning building that they

[1:34:58] escaped to help someone else

[1:35:00] escape and heal from the

[1:35:02] information gathered the

[1:35:04] attorney is equipped to provide

[1:35:05] more information to the court so

[1:35:06] the court can make better

[1:35:07] informed decisions

[1:35:14] these are the counties if

[1:35:16] they're colored where OFR is

[1:35:18] currently implemented by

[1:35:20] November 1st the rest of

[1:35:24] northwest Oklahoma will be

[1:35:24] implemented you will see that's

[1:35:28] judicial district 1,4 and two

[1:35:28] and we will complete judicial

[1:35:32] district22 down in southeast

[1:35:35] Oklahoma leaving only 9 counties

[1:35:36] in southeast Oklahoma and

[1:35:38] Oklahoma County to be

[1:35:40] implemented in the next year

[1:35:41] pending

[1:35:42] appropriations from the

[1:35:43] legislature

[1:35:48] so the impact of OFR

[1:35:54] a judge had stated to us, I can

[1:35:55] tell the cases in my court

[1:35:56] resolved quicker when the parent

[1:35:58] has an OFR interdisciplinary

[1:36:02] team a judge in southeast

[1:36:03] Oklahoma requested that

[1:36:06] OFR be implemented in his

[1:36:08] counties because he thinks I

[1:36:10] would just really benefit from

[1:36:12] OFR a youth mentor that was

[1:36:14] interviewed stated she was so

[1:36:16] thankful that OFR existed and

[1:36:17] the possibilities OFR would give

[1:36:18] youth that were still in the

[1:36:20] system or would be aging out.

[1:36:24] she stated it gives me hope that

[1:36:26] what all I went through in

[1:36:28] foster care can be used to help

[1:36:30] others. A mother who's deprived

[1:36:32] case had been ongoing for over

[1:36:34] two years stated to her parent

[1:36:34] mentor

[1:36:36] that she did not believe her

[1:36:38] attorney when he told her she

[1:36:40] would be getting help from an

[1:36:42] interdisciplinary team she

[1:36:42] thought it was just more words

[1:36:44] coming out of her attorney's

[1:36:46] mouth. Months later the mother

[1:36:48] told her parent mentor that she

[1:36:49] would not be in trial

[1:36:50] reunification without the

[1:36:52] mentor's help the mother said I

[1:36:54] didn't know or understand what

[1:36:58] DHS or the court wanted from me

[1:36:59] and I felt hopeless

[1:37:02] now I get it and we are going to

[1:37:04] be all right a mother stated to

[1:37:06] her indisciplinary

[1:37:08] interdisciplinary team social

[1:37:10] worker my attorney really fought

[1:37:12] for me this is the first time

[1:37:12] someone fought for me like that

[1:37:16] wodHS district directors from

[1:37:18] two different regions recently

[1:37:20] stated to us cases resolve

[1:37:22] faster with OFR and more

[1:37:23] reunifications occur.

[1:37:28] Senator Hicks asked me to talk

[1:37:30] about due process so I added

[1:37:32] this slide and it is with great

[1:37:36] pride that I get to say that OFR

[1:37:38] got this result for an

[1:37:40] incarcerated mother. This

[1:37:42] opinion just came out late early

[1:37:44] last week I think it was Tuesday

[1:37:46] afternoon and is the full

[1:37:46] opinion is on the front page of

[1:37:47] OSCN.

[1:37:50] The Oklahoma Supreme court found

[1:37:51] that this mother

[1:37:56] did not receive due process or

[1:37:56] effective representation of

[1:37:58] counsel in her case

[1:38:02] herr case was from2023 an OFR

[1:38:06] became aware of her case in

[1:38:10] august of2024 it went through a

[1:38:12] process in the trial courts and

[1:38:14] then the court ofiv appeals and

[1:38:16] then a petition for certiary to

[1:38:18] the Oklahoma Supreme Court

[1:38:18] this past

[1:38:22] June I think and we received

[1:38:24] the opinion last Tuesday

[1:38:28] The Supreme court found that the

[1:38:30] trial court's duty to make and

[1:38:32] keep a legal record was not

[1:38:33] safeguarded

[1:38:38] the supreme court found that the

[1:38:40] court proceeded to termination

[1:38:40] of pro rights without the

[1:38:42] required safeguards and without

[1:38:44] a record demonstrating the

[1:38:47] safeguards the absence of the

[1:38:48] record is not merely an

[1:38:50] appellate inconvenience. It is a

[1:38:52] part of the due process problem

[1:38:56] in the any event the uncertainty

[1:38:58] about which procedural path the

[1:39:00] trial court took does not

[1:39:02] control the outcome because due

[1:39:04] process was denied under any

[1:39:06] plausible characterization of

[1:39:08] the april twenty9th proceeding

[1:39:10] which was a petition to

[1:39:12] vacate the termination of per

[1:39:14] rights the court the Supreme

[1:39:16] court overturned the petition to

[1:39:18] vacate and this case has been

[1:39:20] sent back to the trial court

[1:39:22] for further proceedings I

[1:39:23] highlight this case

[1:39:26] as well to mention an adoption

[1:39:28] had already taken place in this

[1:39:30] case and has been in place for

[1:39:34] two years so without effective

[1:39:34] legal representation in the

[1:39:36] trial court this is what can

[1:39:40] happen on an appeal and what

[1:39:42] can happen to an adoption where

[1:39:44] that family thinks their world

[1:39:46] is complete and done after two

[1:39:48] years and it may not be we don't

[1:39:49] know we don't know what's going

[1:39:49] to happen

[1:39:54] so that's why OFR is needed this

[1:39:54] case really illustrates why OFR

[1:39:56] is needed in all of our counties

[1:40:00] and with that I'll take any

[1:40:00] questions.

[1:40:04] Senator Hicks recognized for a

[1:40:05] question

[1:40:10] thank you Mr Chair. so with

[1:40:12] the the volume of trainings that

[1:40:14] you demonstrated are those the

[1:40:18] the trainings specifically

[1:40:20] for the mentors and the

[1:40:22] volunteers are those open to

[1:40:24] anyone I know that you stated

[1:40:26] that they were on your website

[1:40:28] but just specifically when

[1:40:28] we're thinking about ways in

[1:40:30] which we can help create

[1:40:34] more knowledgeable individuals

[1:40:36] in very you know

[1:40:38] very difficult and

[1:40:42] high conflict cases are are

[1:40:44] those trainings available for

[1:40:45] anyone to be able to access

[1:40:48] absolutely all of our trainings

[1:40:48] are available for anyone to

[1:40:49] access.

[1:40:50] we've had

[1:40:54] some40 of my closest colleagues

[1:40:56] from the state of Georgia attend

[1:40:57] a drug testing training that we

[1:40:57] gave.

[1:41:02] en ator Hicks for a follow up

[1:41:04] thank you Mr Chair you

[1:41:06] highlighted a master's level

[1:41:08] social worker. can you help me

[1:41:08] understand why that distinction

[1:41:09] is so important

[1:41:12] master's level social workers

[1:41:14] receive training they have

[1:41:18] expertise they have education

[1:41:20] in how to deal with systems and

[1:41:22] how to deal with case

[1:41:22] management. they also have

[1:41:24] clinical training but we don't

[1:41:26] use that part of their education

[1:41:28] they really do case management

[1:41:30] for us they do assessments for

[1:41:32] us they also guide and oversee

[1:41:34] our mentors and do reflective

[1:41:36] supervision with them and so

[1:41:38] they're training and expertise

[1:41:38] is of a caliber that

[1:41:40] is needed to navigate the child

[1:41:42] welfare system as well as the

[1:41:44] juvenile deprived court system

[1:41:45] because these families are now

[1:41:48] getting two systems when

[1:41:48] they're in the juvenile deprived

[1:41:49] court

[1:41:52] further questions

[1:41:58] a few from the chair. so

[1:42:00] august we'll start with the

[1:42:00] matter of xw that was just down

[1:42:02] the prior slide

[1:42:06] was the office of

[1:42:08] familymilypresentation involved

[1:42:12] in any of the appel appeals for

[1:42:14] that case or was it the

[1:42:15] claimants or

[1:42:18] I don't know appellate's own

[1:42:20] attorney or otherwise held

[1:42:24] council so OFR has a pellet

[1:42:26] panel of appellate attorneys

[1:42:26] that work for us that are

[1:42:28] contracted with us and one of

[1:42:30] our panel appellate attorneys

[1:42:31] did the work for this appeal

[1:42:36] how are their requests for

[1:42:38] representations? how are they

[1:42:40] reached to your level? are they

[1:42:41] assigned by the judge is are

[1:42:44] people able to directly reach

[1:42:45] out to OFR for representation?

[1:42:51] yes and no it's kind of your

[1:42:54] answer so what happens is is we

[1:42:56] contract with the trial lawyers

[1:42:58] and then we provide each judge

[1:43:00] with a benchc card and the

[1:43:00] benchc card tells the judged

[1:43:03] these are your OFR attorneys for

[1:43:04] your juvenile deprived cases in

[1:43:06] your county and they may use

[1:43:08] those to appoint for parent and

[1:43:10] child representation like

[1:43:10] judgedge conyers mentioned

[1:43:12] earlier today our lawyers in the

[1:43:14] rural counties you have to

[1:43:16] exempt Tulssonokklahoma County

[1:43:16] because they have the public

[1:43:17] defender who

[1:43:18] represents children but all

[1:43:20] other75 counties our lawyers

[1:43:22] will represent both parents and

[1:43:24] children on a rotating basis so

[1:43:25] they get that experience and

[1:43:28] knowledge from both sides and so

[1:43:28] the judged uses their benchc

[1:43:30] card for when a case comes in to

[1:43:32] appoint lawyers to the parents

[1:43:33] and to the children in the case

[1:43:36] so the judge makes that own

[1:43:38] determination themselves without

[1:43:40] any kind of request from

[1:43:42] a parent or anybody else

[1:43:43] involved.

[1:43:46] judgedge conyers is shaking her

[1:43:47] head now no it doesn't work that

[1:43:48] way but I can explain how it

[1:43:50] works and if she thinks I did it

[1:43:52] wrong she can jump in

[1:43:54] so what happens is when a case

[1:43:56] comes to before the judge in the

[1:43:58] emergency custody hearing our

[1:43:59] statutes say at that point in

[1:44:00] time the judge may appoint a

[1:44:04] lawyer for a parent a parent can

[1:44:05] request at that time there's

[1:44:06] only a few counties that appoint

[1:44:10] parents attorneys prior to that

[1:44:10] particular hearing it would be

[1:44:12] best practice for all parents to

[1:44:13] have their court appointed

[1:44:13] lawyer

[1:44:16] before that hearing. children

[1:44:18] are required to have a lawyer

[1:44:22] appointed at that hearing at

[1:44:22] the next hearing each county

[1:44:24] kind of does this different

[1:44:26] about the next hearing some

[1:44:28] counties insert a made up

[1:44:30] hearing and they call it like

[1:44:32] aer hearing or something like

[1:44:32] that or initial appearance

[1:44:34] hearing and at that time parents

[1:44:36] can fill out the pauper's

[1:44:38] affidavit which is different in

[1:44:40] all77 counties it's not uniform

[1:44:42] and they can then be a

[1:44:43] parents can then be appointed

[1:44:46] attorney at that hearing every

[1:44:48] parent should be appointed an

[1:44:48] attorney by the next hearing

[1:44:50] which is the adjudication

[1:44:52] hearing and children should

[1:44:54] most definitely have already had

[1:44:56] their attorney appointed by

[1:44:57] that point in time.

[1:45:04] my emotion process that

[1:45:10] yeah you'd have to come up to

[1:45:12] the microphone can identify

[1:45:12] yourself for the new statement

[1:45:18] atpecialjudge Kim conyers from

[1:45:18] Cleveland County so in my

[1:45:20] courtroom it it does progress

[1:45:22] much like that when parents come

[1:45:24] for the temporary emergency

[1:45:27] custody hearing which is after

[1:45:28] the initial custody order has

[1:45:32] been done that has to happen

[1:45:34] within two judicial days so a

[1:45:36] lot of times they do not have

[1:45:38] representation at that hearing.

[1:45:38] That is a very brief hearing

[1:45:41] before me just to determine if

[1:45:44] there's reasonable suspicion to

[1:45:44] continue to hold the child in D

[1:45:47] H S custody so it's a very brief

[1:45:50] hearing. I always allow them

[1:45:52] time to make any statements that

[1:45:54] they want to make or let me know

[1:45:56] any information that they feel

[1:45:57] like is important for me to know

[1:45:58] but most of the time the

[1:46:00] information I get at that

[1:46:00] hearing comes from the DHS

[1:46:01] worker

[1:46:04] Once a petition has been

[1:46:06] actually filed. my office goes

[1:46:08] to our lists and automatically

[1:46:10] appoints an attorney for the

[1:46:10] child or children

[1:46:14] at the very first we tell them

[1:46:15] at tell parents at the show

[1:46:16] cause hearing you need to have

[1:46:18] an attorney by your next hearing

[1:46:20] you have the option to hire an

[1:46:22] attorney if you cannot afford to

[1:46:24] hire an attorney then you can

[1:46:25] fill out a court appointed

[1:46:26] attorney application and I will

[1:46:27] consider that

[1:46:30] and appoint an attorney to

[1:46:32] represent you if appropriate.

[1:46:34] Now in practice I would love it

[1:46:36] if they would sit right down and

[1:46:37] just fill out that application

[1:46:38] so I could have that attorney in

[1:46:39] place for them by the time they

[1:46:40] come back

[1:46:44] in reality despite the fact that

[1:46:47] I say every single time do not

[1:46:49] wait until the day before to

[1:46:52] return this form to my office I

[1:46:53] get them back in my office the

[1:46:54] day before their next court

[1:46:55] hearing

[1:46:58] If that happens and they don't

[1:46:59] have an attorney, I go ahead and

[1:47:00] appoint an attorney at that

[1:47:04] hearing and we reset the initial

[1:47:06] adjudication or arraignment on

[1:47:10] that petition. I I don't proceed

[1:47:11] unless they insist on proceeding

[1:47:14] prose, I don't proceed to the

[1:47:16] adjudication stage without them

[1:47:17] having that attorney in place.

[1:47:22] and I just keep a a running list

[1:47:26] of my OFR contractors and it's

[1:47:28] kind of next man up as long as

[1:47:30] they don't have a conflict

[1:47:32] from handling a case previously

[1:47:34] or being involved with the

[1:47:34] family in some other way.

[1:47:40] you of those attorneys then

[1:47:42] what is the case load typically

[1:47:44] within an OFR attorney somebody

[1:47:45] that's contracted judged Coners

[1:47:46] if you would turn off your mic

[1:47:51] our caseload and compensation

[1:47:53] schedule is on our website and

[1:47:56] so there's really not a typical

[1:47:58] average caseload. it depends on

[1:48:02] the area of the state so intulsa

[1:48:04] most of those lawyers are on a

[1:48:06] caseload of60 to 80 cases we try

[1:48:08] to keep them in the middle of

[1:48:10] that caseload range and then

[1:48:13] they it goes down from that

[1:48:15] by statute are enabling statute

[1:48:16] they can't have more than 80

[1:48:17] cases national practice

[1:48:21] is a full time attorney doing

[1:48:22] this work shouldn't have more

[1:48:24] than60 parents on their

[1:48:28] caseload and so we go from 1

[1:48:32] to twenty,20 to40,40 to60 and

[1:48:33] then60 to 80.

[1:48:36] are our caseloads and very few

[1:48:36] might have

[1:48:38] we might tweak that just a

[1:48:39] little bit

[1:48:43] are all the attorneys contract

[1:48:45] attorneys within communities or

[1:48:46] are there some actually within

[1:48:47] the statewide office that go out

[1:48:47] to trials

[1:48:51] by the enabling statute no one

[1:48:53] in my office is allowed to have

[1:48:55] client contact except for the

[1:48:57] managing attorney of appellate

[1:49:00] practice and he may be he is

[1:49:02] able to decide if he wants to

[1:49:04] keep an appeal that's come to

[1:49:06] him to be assigned and if he

[1:49:08] wants to do it himself so all

[1:49:09] the trial attorneys and the

[1:49:10] other appellate attorneys are on

[1:49:11] contract.

[1:49:15] you said compensation is posted

[1:49:18] on the website iss it a per case

[1:49:18] per hour how is that

[1:49:20] compensation determined it's a

[1:49:24] flat fee so the contractors that

[1:49:25] have the60 to 80 caseload our

[1:49:26] highest caseload range get a

[1:49:27] flat fee of $8000 a month.

[1:49:32] and they are required to do high

[1:49:34] quality legal representation to

[1:49:37] keep their contract which is

[1:49:38] not like what they were doing

[1:49:39] prior to OFR.

[1:49:42] When

[1:49:46] contract attorney is involved

[1:49:48] what is the typical resolution

[1:49:49] you said in one of these that it

[1:49:54] comes in one of the slides said

[1:49:56] faster reunification is that the

[1:49:58] typical outcome are there other

[1:50:00] recommendations that come

[1:50:02] through and then obviously how

[1:50:04] does this square with your you

[1:50:07] know don't represent the best

[1:50:08] interest of the child that's

[1:50:10] forcasa so well it's by statute

[1:50:12] the legislature put that in

[1:50:14] statute how children are

[1:50:16] represented and it's entitled

[1:50:20] today 1-4-306 and so how these

[1:50:21] out

[1:50:24] com es are determined by clients

[1:50:26] clients direct lawyers with

[1:50:28] what they want to be their

[1:50:30] family preservation and to see

[1:50:32] their out to see what happens in

[1:50:32] one of these cases so if you're

[1:50:34] a parent lawyer you sit down you

[1:50:36] talk to your client you inform

[1:50:38] them and counsel them about the

[1:50:39] law and you find out what they

[1:50:42] want for their family and in

[1:50:43] this case and then the lawyer

[1:50:44] goes to work to accomplish that.

[1:50:47] Lawyers are also tasked under

[1:50:48] the law to be counselors at law

[1:50:50] and so when your client comes to

[1:50:51] you with an outrageous request

[1:50:54] of course you might counsel them

[1:50:55] that we can't do that but then

[1:50:56] in the end if that's what they

[1:50:58] ask, did you go before Judge

[1:51:00] conyers and you look and you

[1:51:01] make that statement of what your

[1:51:02] client has asked you to do

[1:51:04] there's lots of people in the

[1:51:06] courtroom to safeguard the best

[1:51:07] interests of children and the

[1:51:10] main person is the judge as well

[1:51:11] asassa and as well as the

[1:51:13] district attorney if a child

[1:51:15] wants to go home a 12 year old

[1:51:16] wants to go home and their

[1:51:18] mother father hasn't healed or

[1:51:19] corrected the conditions from

[1:51:20] which the judge has ordered them

[1:51:21] to correct it is

[1:51:23] in the child tells their

[1:51:23] attorney I want to go home

[1:51:26] the attorney of the child has to

[1:51:27] go in there and tell judgedge

[1:51:29] conyers I want to go home and

[1:51:30] then there's all the other folks

[1:51:32] that are in that room to

[1:51:33] safeguard and represent the best

[1:51:34] interests of the child to

[1:51:35] judgedge conyers and then she

[1:51:37] makes the final decision of what

[1:51:38] is in the best interests of that

[1:51:38] child.

[1:51:46] one of the other things that I

[1:51:47] had pulled out was your

[1:51:48] presentation was money from the

[1:51:50] legislature for full expansion

[1:51:52] what what will be your budget

[1:51:53] request

[1:51:56] going forward for full

[1:51:57] implementation and what do you

[1:51:57] see this program going

[1:52:00] with current budget and then

[1:52:04] you know again what your request

[1:52:06] will be I think in previous

[1:52:07] presentations to the legislature

[1:52:10] that are not mine as I am not

[1:52:12] allowed to lobby the legislature

[1:52:14] but previous documentation is

[1:52:16] shown to the legislature that

[1:52:17] the full budget for the Oklahoma

[1:52:18] office the family representation

[1:52:20] in all77 counties is about20

[1:52:21] million dollars.

[1:52:25] what has been or what is part of

[1:52:28] the current budget for OFR and

[1:52:30] your contract. the legislature

[1:52:32] has appropriated for the last

[1:52:33] few years $10.5 million.

[1:52:39] thank you any further questions

[1:52:39] committee members present

[1:52:44] all right thank you appreciate

[1:52:45] you being here today. Senator

[1:52:46] Hicks you're recognized for

[1:52:47] introduction of the your next

[1:52:47] speaker.

[1:52:52] thank you Mr chairir at this

[1:52:54] time we have our final

[1:52:56] presenter this isill Walsh and

[1:52:58] she is the grandmother

[1:52:58] ofelizabeth Feaster.

[1:53:27] Thank you for allowing me the

[1:53:27] privilege

[1:53:30] to tell you about our girl

[1:53:31] Lizzie rose

[1:53:34] and today I wear pink for Lizzie

[1:53:37] and we wear pink for Lizzie

[1:53:46] Elizabeth rose feaster entered

[1:53:48] this world august22,2018.

[1:53:52] from day one she captured the

[1:53:53] hearts of everyone she met

[1:53:58] She was love. she was laughter

[1:53:58] and she was full of light.

[1:54:02] she gave the best hugs and was

[1:54:03] the snuggliest of all snugglers.

[1:54:10] She loved ice cream, popsicles

[1:54:10] and blue ring pops.

[1:54:14] flue was her favorite flavor

[1:54:20] She's show appreciation for pop

[1:54:24] pop's dinners with a loud m m

[1:54:25] and a big thumbs up

[1:54:30] she loved her life or lived her

[1:54:32] life with such unapologetic

[1:54:33] gusto

[1:54:35] that I want to be her when I

[1:54:35] grow up

[1:54:40] herr older brother Aidean was

[1:54:41] always by her side

[1:54:44] something was a little scary or

[1:54:45] she hadn't warmed up yet.

[1:54:47] she would stand by her big

[1:54:47] brother

[1:54:51] and without a word without a

[1:54:51] thought

[1:54:55] their hands would clasp together

[1:54:56] that's trust that's love.

[1:54:59] Lizzie had her hero

[1:55:00] She called her mom

[1:55:06] She was so proud to have her

[1:55:07] mamma help people by taking 911

[1:55:07] calls

[1:55:12] and she wanted to take 911 calls

[1:55:12] like her mama when she got big.

[1:55:16] Lizzie and I had our own special

[1:55:18] things. We left shopping at ive

[1:55:19] below on the weekends

[1:55:22] We made up songs for everything

[1:55:26] ed lock red lights potty

[1:55:28] training just loving each other

[1:55:29] everything

[1:55:32] we love to go swimming and she

[1:55:34] would stay from open to close if

[1:55:35] I let her

[1:55:36] We had so much fun

[1:55:40] shared so many laughs

[1:55:50] Lizzie loved to be loud. She

[1:55:51] would sing in the shower at the

[1:55:52] top of her lungs and in the car

[1:55:54] and in the room and anywhere she

[1:55:55] was at

[1:55:58] when she was mad she would also

[1:55:59] make sure you were aware

[1:56:00] and she would tromp through the

[1:56:02] house sounding like a herd of

[1:56:03] elephants.

[1:56:05] Lizzie loved swimming roller

[1:56:05] skating and swimming

[1:56:06] really loved swimming

[1:56:12] she loved her 50 plus stuffies

[1:56:13] and each one had their own

[1:56:13] special name.

[1:56:18] over that summer we went on her

[1:56:20] first water slide together and I

[1:56:22] will never forget the look on

[1:56:23] her face.

[1:56:28] Lizzie was a bright, creative

[1:56:29] and clever child.

[1:56:32] she surrounded herself with her

[1:56:36] stuffies balloons and boxes that

[1:56:36] she would turn into something

[1:56:37] magical.

[1:56:40] she was always creating art

[1:56:44] playing makebelieve and singing

[1:56:46] her favorite songs she saw joy

[1:56:47] impossibility

[1:56:50] and everything around her

[1:56:56] e li z ab e th rotheaster left

[1:56:57] this world on June twentyninth.

[1:56:58] 2025

[1:57:02] She was 6 years,10 months.

[1:57:04] and7 days

[1:57:10] She'd been so excited to be

[1:57:10] going into the2nd grade.

[1:57:14] so excited to pull that wiggly

[1:57:16] tooth that just wasn't quite

[1:57:16] ready

[1:57:20] and so excited to eat taffy and

[1:57:21] chew gum once her silver tooth

[1:57:21] fell out.

[1:57:28] Lizzie was shot in the back by

[1:57:30] her biological father in her

[1:57:31] grandma's backyard.

[1:57:33] he then turned the gun on

[1:57:33] himself

[1:57:36] herr autopsy revealed

[1:57:39] she had been sexually abused by

[1:57:39] him

[1:57:44] lizzie didn't want to go that

[1:57:47] weekend, I asked why she said

[1:57:47] because her dad was there

[1:57:51] I asked all the questions

[1:57:54] maybe I didn't ask the right

[1:57:54] one. I don't know.

[1:58:00] I told her just to hang out with

[1:58:01] grandma.

[1:58:02] I didn't piece it together

[1:58:05] till after the fact

[1:58:10] now her father didn't allow her

[1:58:11] to go in her grandma's bedroom.

[1:58:13] and that's where grandma was

[1:58:18] Lizzie had no safe haven from

[1:58:19] her abuser

[1:58:20] and again

[1:58:26] this occurred under court

[1:58:27] ordered supervised

[1:58:30] overnight visitation

[1:58:36] The Oklahoma County DA's office

[1:58:38] is not pressing any charges

[1:58:40] because grandma didn't know she

[1:58:40] had to keep eyes on Lizzie and

[1:58:41] Aidan.

[1:58:44] the city of bethany Police

[1:58:47] Department, Oklahoma DHS were

[1:58:48] contacted in October2024

[1:58:52] when Lindsay and aided witnessed

[1:58:54] a physical domestic dispute

[1:58:55] between their father and their

[1:58:55] grandfather.

[1:58:58] bethany Pd took a report

[1:59:02] but didn't know what to do with

[1:59:03] it since the kids were not hurt.

[1:59:07] DHS did a surprise popin visit.

[1:59:09] at my daughter's home

[1:59:12] and made an appointment with the

[1:59:13] father.

[1:59:17] these two brave kiddos wanted to

[1:59:18] tell the police they were

[1:59:20] worried about grandma and

[1:59:22] grandfather and they were scared

[1:59:23] for their own safety

[1:59:24] my daughter

[1:59:26] was treated

[1:59:30] like a bitter baby mama

[1:59:34] I talked to the grandfather

[1:59:38] and begged them to get help

[1:59:41] that we were scared for their

[1:59:41] safety

[1:59:45] he told me he could handle him

[1:59:51] the kids kids did not go back

[1:59:54] over for visitation until DHS

[1:59:56] talked with them and gave the it

[1:59:56] was safe.

[1:59:58] that was in December2024.

[2:00:04] when custody proceedings began

[2:00:06] in December2018, my daughter

[2:00:08] sought and was granted avPO.

[2:00:10] for herself and her children

[2:00:12] they moved into my home

[2:00:18] wo days later I receive a phone

[2:00:20] call from my oldest son saying

[2:00:22] please were at her house. my

[2:00:23] daughter had to leave and they

[2:00:23] were going to take the kids

[2:00:27] I got home as fast as I could.

[2:00:34] a false retaliatoryvPO was filed

[2:00:35] by the father.

[2:00:39] my daughter had to leave my home

[2:00:43] and I was granted guardianship

[2:00:44] over the kids through DhS.

[2:00:46] court was a joke

[2:00:52] the judge was unjustly mean and

[2:00:53] hard on my daughter

[2:00:56] called her a liar because of

[2:00:57] what he wrote when he filed hisv

[2:00:57] pm

[2:01:02] made a point to embarrass her

[2:01:04] for wearing her work clothes

[2:01:05] which were black slacks in a

[2:01:05] polo top.

[2:01:09] because she came directly from

[2:01:09] work

[2:01:13] and was going straight back

[2:01:13] after

[2:01:13] court

[2:01:20] Their father fought with the

[2:01:21] daycare

[2:01:24] because they wouldn't let him

[2:01:25] take them out of the building

[2:01:26] alone and supervised

[2:01:31] he called the family counselor

[2:01:32] horrible names and threatened

[2:01:33] her

[2:01:34] all of which the judge knew and

[2:01:37] did not address other than a

[2:01:37] question to the grandmother.

[2:01:40] you didn't raise him to do that

[2:01:41] right?

[2:01:43] of course she went right

[2:01:48] he did not attend the mandatory

[2:01:50] domestic violence classes. he

[2:01:51] did not have the court ordered

[2:01:52] psyche evaluation completed. he

[2:01:54] did not intend individual

[2:01:57] counseling and he continued to

[2:01:59] harass my daughter, drive by her

[2:02:00] house until she started working

[2:02:04] at 911 and please heavily

[2:02:06] patrolled her neighborhood and

[2:02:08] walked her to and from her car

[2:02:09] daily

[2:02:14] and he continued just to do

[2:02:14] whatever he wanted

[2:02:20] We trusted the court system

[2:02:22] we trusted DHS

[2:02:28] without their

[2:02:33] father's participation in any of

[2:02:36] the required tasks he was still

[2:02:38] granted overnight visitation

[2:02:42] that should never have been an

[2:02:43] option

[2:02:48] without clear standards

[2:02:48] supervision provided may be

[2:02:49] inconsistent

[2:02:52] passive or ineffective

[2:02:54] leaving children vulnerable

[2:02:58] Lindsay was left vulnerable

[2:03:02] and paid the price

[2:03:04] with her innocence

[2:03:06] in her life

[2:03:13] please help me

[2:03:16] please help Senator Hicks

[2:03:20] add another layer of safety for

[2:03:21] these children

[2:03:24] there's a strong correlation

[2:03:25] between the state of Oklahoma

[2:03:28] being number50 in education

[2:03:32] and number one in domestic

[2:03:33] violence

[2:03:36] Children can't learn ABCs

[2:03:37] if their little minds

[2:03:40] are learning to survive

[2:03:48] senator Higgs

[2:03:52] thank you Mr Chair and thank you

[2:03:55] so much for being here. would

[2:03:56] you like to stand for questions

[2:03:57] or absolutely

[2:03:59] OK I'll open it up to my

[2:03:59] colleagues

[2:04:02] are there questions

[2:04:08] ma'am appreciate you being here

[2:04:09] today and

[2:04:12] giving testimony and sharing the

[2:04:13] story of Lizzie on this

[2:04:16] I can understand your

[2:04:18] frustrations court system

[2:04:19] especially given personal

[2:04:22] experience that you had with

[2:04:23] it

[2:04:26] my question again we're

[2:04:28] trying to figure out what can be

[2:04:32] best going forward you know

[2:04:34] when could intervention and what

[2:04:34] could intervention have looked

[2:04:35] like

[2:04:38] earlier to have prevented this

[2:04:40] again judges have dockets that

[2:04:42] they have to look at they have

[2:04:43] to take testimony

[2:04:46] and they have to weigh that

[2:04:47] on their own so at what point

[2:04:50] could intervention have come in

[2:04:52] that potentially could have

[2:04:53] saved Lizzie's life in your

[2:04:54] view. theres several things the

[2:04:55] first thing

[2:04:56] is

[2:05:00] in the beginning I was a

[2:05:03] supervisor for my daughter's

[2:05:04] visitation once thatvPO went out

[2:05:08] so I was her supervisor and his

[2:05:09] mother was his supervisor

[2:05:12] I knew the rules

[2:05:16] she said she didn't

[2:05:20] we did not have a class. we did

[2:05:22] not have a sheet of paper for a

[2:05:23] checklist we had nothing

[2:05:27] but I knew that I had to keep my

[2:05:30] eyes on these kids around my

[2:05:32] daughter even though I trusted

[2:05:33] her 100%. I treated her like a

[2:05:33] criminal.

[2:05:37] that's what was required of me.

[2:05:43] that was not being he was not

[2:05:44] being held to that same standard

[2:05:47] Again we did not have

[2:05:50] a guideline to go through.

[2:05:54] I also think domestic violence

[2:05:56] and classes should be given

[2:06:02] to the supervisors as well

[2:06:03] because of domestic violence is

[2:06:03] going on

[2:06:06] if you're in the middle of it,

[2:06:07] sometimes you can't see it

[2:06:12] but once you start talking to

[2:06:13] people and you're talking in

[2:06:15] group that comes out and you're

[2:06:17] like oh my that's that happens

[2:06:18] to me that's not normal

[2:06:26] so I think education for these

[2:06:26] supervisors

[2:06:28] they need to know what they're

[2:06:29] getting into

[2:06:32] they need to know their

[2:06:32] responsibilities

[2:06:36] and they need to know when they

[2:06:37] need to stop it

[2:06:40] when they need to remove that

[2:06:42] child when they need to back

[2:06:43] away and go hey I don't think I

[2:06:44] can do this safely anymore

[2:06:47] that never happens

[2:06:52] we made several

[2:06:56] attempts talking to DhS and then

[2:06:57] talking through the attorneys

[2:07:02] in everything we said

[2:07:06] well we found out that he took

[2:07:08] them to a store just a

[2:07:10] convenience store but again that

[2:07:11] was not supposed to happen

[2:07:13] turned it into DHS

[2:07:16] nothingthing was done or said

[2:07:21] so why why even why even bother

[2:07:22] with the system if we're not

[2:07:23] going to make them follow the

[2:07:24] rules

[2:07:27] and I know we had a lot of

[2:07:28] guidelines in place

[2:07:31] it needs to be more than

[2:07:31] guidelines

[2:07:36] when domestic violence is

[2:07:40] involved at any level because if

[2:07:42] they're doing it to the parent,

[2:07:44] they're doing it to the children

[2:07:44] even if it's just

[2:07:46] secondhand.hink of it like

[2:07:47] smoking

[2:07:50] someone may be smoking it's

[2:07:50] still going to affect this

[2:07:51] little one over here

[2:08:04] looking at that I pulled up OSCN

[2:08:04] you know

[2:08:06] allegations on the father

[2:08:07] charges on the father there were

[2:08:09] no criminal allegations or

[2:08:09] criminal charges against him

[2:08:12] at any time there was a couple

[2:08:14] of traffic tickets there also

[2:08:16] was a protective order looks

[2:08:17] like possibly filed by your

[2:08:18] daughter you know how

[2:08:24] how can we create a system that

[2:08:28] you know doesn't assume

[2:08:31] everybody is involved in Dv orsa

[2:08:32] and that's easy to do as well.

[2:08:33] There were steps in place

[2:08:36] that could have figured this

[2:08:38] out. he could have done the

[2:08:39] psyche evaluation

[2:08:42] that would show you right there

[2:08:43] it showed my daughter was a

[2:08:43] victim

[2:08:44] and

[2:08:47] she had been a victim of

[2:08:50] domestic violence and and it was

[2:08:51] not just a one day test

[2:08:54] she had to go back 3 and4 times

[2:08:55] it was $1000 test

[2:08:58] we went and took a loan to make

[2:08:59] sure that she could do that

[2:09:04] and one of his concerns was

[2:09:05] money. well

[2:09:09] there's a lot of things that

[2:09:09] would do for my kids

[2:09:14] if I had to sell plasma there's

[2:09:15] ways

[2:09:16] there's ways to get money

[2:09:19] there's organizations that are

[2:09:19] willing to help

[2:09:20] and I'm

[2:09:25] I've got so many things that I

[2:09:26] want to do inlizzie's name

[2:09:30] to help as well. I just got to

[2:09:31] figure it out

[2:09:35] so one of those things that we

[2:09:37] would put into law would be a

[2:09:38] strict compliance or zero

[2:09:40] tolerance do you think that

[2:09:40] that's

[2:09:44] the extent to where it would go

[2:09:47] of any any noncompliance then

[2:09:47] becomes a

[2:09:50] you essentially loss of

[2:09:52] visitation right it sounds like

[2:09:54] what you would be advocating for

[2:09:56] here is that how far you would

[2:09:58] go or I mean how do we look into

[2:10:00] again weighing for4 million

[2:10:02] Oklahomans whenever legislation

[2:10:04] comes through right now I am

[2:10:05] very

[2:10:08] I believe people can change. I

[2:10:10] have to believe they can prove

[2:10:12] that they have to prove that

[2:10:14] change but I believe they can

[2:10:16] change but what we're doing is

[2:10:17] we are holding these children

[2:10:20] like hostages they don't get a

[2:10:21] choice they don't get a say they

[2:10:23] get stuck with these parents who

[2:10:24] scare the bejesus out of them

[2:10:30] And I don't know if you've ever

[2:10:31] been in a room with people that

[2:10:31] you're terrified of but

[2:10:35] are you going to stand up and go

[2:10:36] he hurt me? absolutely not.

[2:10:40] we have to be able to listen to

[2:10:41] these kids and when they do talk

[2:10:44] pay attention and not say well

[2:10:46] your mom made you say that.

[2:10:48] Well, you know what? even if she

[2:10:49] did

[2:10:52] that's when the the therapy and

[2:10:54] the investigation and the

[2:10:55] psychevals come in

[2:10:56] there's ways

[2:11:00] to weed that out and once it

[2:11:02] starts getting weeded out less

[2:11:04] people are going to try and go

[2:11:05] that route because they're going

[2:11:07] to get found out right now it's

[2:11:08] just whatever goes

[2:11:11] now we could have been real

[2:11:14] nasty and real ugly we chose not

[2:11:16] to we're civil people. my

[2:11:16] daughter

[2:11:20] I was I was on the road to just

[2:11:21] don't send them just don't send

[2:11:22] them don't send them and she's

[2:11:23] like but mom

[2:11:24] that's their dad

[2:11:26] and they love him

[2:11:30] so whenever you say to me just

[2:11:34] I would not stop visitation

[2:11:35] without cause.

[2:11:38] and you always I think there

[2:11:40] should always be a chance to

[2:11:41] earn it back

[2:11:44] but you get to earn it back at

[2:11:45] the kid's speed

[2:11:46] when they're ready

[2:11:48] you do that work

[2:11:52] start with phone calls sart with

[2:11:54] our visitation

[2:11:56] you knows build up to it

[2:12:00] because I can be real good for

[2:12:01] 30 minutes.

[2:12:02] maybe not for five hours.

[2:12:07] it's more than just we're just

[2:12:08] getting little glimps in these

[2:12:10] lives and the glimpses that we

[2:12:11] see they're on their best

[2:12:12] behavior when we're in front of

[2:12:12] you

[2:12:19] any further questions committee

[2:12:19] members

[2:12:20] senator you're recognized

[2:12:28] thank you for being here did

[2:12:28] Lizzie have legal representation

[2:12:32] did have an ad item

[2:12:35] lizzie was an infant at that

[2:12:35] time

[2:12:39] and whenever our court

[2:12:42] proceedings started and by the

[2:12:43] time she passed away our case

[2:12:46] was already closed with the

[2:12:46] visitation set

[2:12:48] as

[2:12:52] as supervised it was standard

[2:12:53] supervision

[2:12:56] but supervised by his mother

[2:13:02] for as far as that how closely

[2:13:04] you're involved in that

[2:13:04] situation but as far as any kind

[2:13:08] of caseload do you feel like she

[2:13:10] got adequate representation you

[2:13:11] nobody can foresee these kinds

[2:13:12] of situations but whether

[2:13:15] signals or maybe missed because

[2:13:16] of a caseload situation in your

[2:13:17] opinion?

[2:13:20] no I think our attorneys were

[2:13:21] doing the best that they could

[2:13:25] and the attorney that we used is

[2:13:27] now a a judge in the juvenile

[2:13:27] courts

[2:13:33] I I think she was doing her due

[2:13:34] diligence but there were a lot

[2:13:38] of the the rules that we weren't

[2:13:40] aware of and and weren't made

[2:13:40] aware of and I don't know if it

[2:13:43] was an oversight or she just saw

[2:13:43] how it was moving

[2:13:47] and but one of the things that

[2:13:50] we did put in place was whenever

[2:13:53] the case did become closed in

[2:13:55] order for him to get that

[2:13:58] supervision removed he would

[2:14:01] have to do all the check marks

[2:14:02] he'd had to do the classes he

[2:14:03] had to do the

[2:14:07] the psych evaluation he had to

[2:14:08] do the counseling and not once

[2:14:09] did he ever make that effort to

[2:14:10] do it

[2:14:14] and that is a problem in itself.

[2:14:16] if you're not willing to do the

[2:14:16] work for your child

[2:14:18] to be better for your child

[2:14:21] and you see them struggling

[2:14:26] Step away

[2:14:28] you don't get that right

[2:14:32] I'm really tired of being

[2:14:38] so polite to the parents who

[2:14:40] they're the ones who have called

[2:14:41] to this mess

[2:14:43] I'm not saying all parents are

[2:14:44] bad

[2:14:48] I'm not saying situations don't

[2:14:49] come up. I'm from southeast

[2:14:51] Oklahoma I know I mean very poor

[2:14:51] little town

[2:14:56] I know how how things work and I

[2:14:57] know how people can overcome

[2:14:57] these things

[2:15:04] but it's got to be for the kids.

[2:15:06] We have to airr on the caution

[2:15:08] side of the kids

[2:15:13] said my daughter was treated

[2:15:15] like we were just bringing them

[2:15:16] up there just so they can tattle

[2:15:18] on their dad. no that wasn't it.

[2:15:20] When she picked them up they

[2:15:20] were hysterical

[2:15:24] Grandpa went through a wall

[2:15:31] when I talked to him about it

[2:15:32] like nothing happened

[2:15:34] but that's their own

[2:15:38] domestic violence issue that

[2:15:38] needs to be addressed.

[2:15:44] we say again you know we we let

[2:15:45] DHS know

[2:15:48] we let the police officers know

[2:15:52] and then my daughter went home

[2:15:52] and cried doubleub locked the

[2:15:54] door and her kids never played

[2:15:55] out in the front yard.

[2:15:56] they lived like prisoners

[2:16:00] and when Lizzie passed

[2:16:02] that was the worst day ever

[2:16:07] but when her dad went

[2:16:12] there was just relief because we

[2:16:13] still have one more.

[2:16:15] she has an older brother

[2:16:19] who's lost his dad and his

[2:16:19] sister

[2:16:26] further questions

[2:16:30] just a follow up on you know

[2:16:34] was there

[2:16:38] and so I know that the mom was

[2:16:40] the advocate in that situation

[2:16:42] of bringing forward

[2:16:46] the abuse you know

[2:16:48] allegations at that time

[2:16:50] probably should have been

[2:16:52] substantiated. did the children

[2:16:54] have direct contact with a

[2:16:58] court of appointed supervisor or

[2:17:00] attorney or we had a guardian ad

[2:17:04] litem and part of the DHS

[2:17:06] plan was they had individual

[2:17:08] counseling as much as they could

[2:17:10] they were 3 and6 months at the

[2:17:11] time I believe

[2:17:12] and

[2:17:16] so as much as as much as they

[2:17:18] could I visited with her quite

[2:17:22] often and you know aiden little

[2:17:24] toddler he fell and hit his head

[2:17:26] I would let her know we took him

[2:17:26] to the emergency room. this is

[2:17:28] what happened. you knowing we

[2:17:32] did was documented and got them

[2:17:33] through school and

[2:17:36] was that during the paternity

[2:17:37] determination or did that

[2:17:40] continue on and after visitation

[2:17:40] after this was after

[2:17:44] well this is while the case was

[2:17:46] still going on. I had them for a

[2:17:47] little over a year

[2:17:50] and before it was decided that

[2:17:52] my daughter had done what she

[2:17:54] needed to do and was granted

[2:17:54] full custody

[2:17:58] Any final questions

[2:18:06] ing onen hicks you're recognized

[2:18:06] for wrap up in the study

[2:18:10] thank you Mr Chair thank you so

[2:18:11] much for joining us today

[2:18:14] I know that we are past time

[2:18:16] but I prepared my remarks

[2:18:18] because I knew I was going to be

[2:18:20] emotional and I wanted to

[2:18:22] make sure that my

[2:18:24] colleagues've I've got the list

[2:18:28] the NCsL sent we didn't

[2:18:28] have anyone that was available

[2:18:30] to present this research but

[2:18:32] it is a national look and so I'm

[2:18:34] gonna reference some of that in

[2:18:35] my closing remarks

[2:18:36] I really want to thank each of

[2:18:38] our speakers for being here

[2:18:40] today and sharing your

[2:18:42] expertise, your experiences and

[2:18:44] in some cases deeply personal

[2:18:44] stories.

[2:18:46] I want to begin by recognizing

[2:18:47] something important.

[2:18:50] supervised visitation is not

[2:18:52] simply a scheduling arrangement

[2:18:54] or a procedural requirement in a

[2:18:54] court order.

[2:18:58] when a court orders supervised

[2:18:58] visitation it is making a

[2:19:00] determination that supervision

[2:19:04] is necessary to protect a child

[2:19:04] or another party

[2:19:08] Oklahoma law already recognizes

[2:19:08] that the health safety and

[2:19:10] welfare of the child are

[2:19:10] paramount when supervised

[2:19:12] visitation is ordered. That

[2:19:14] means we have a responsibility

[2:19:15] to ask a very basic question

[2:19:18] does the system we have today

[2:19:20] consistently provide the level

[2:19:24] of safety training documentation

[2:19:26] and accountability that families

[2:19:26] and courts are relying upon it

[2:19:27] to provide.

[2:19:30] I think today's testimony has

[2:19:31] helped us begin answering that

[2:19:31] question

[2:19:34] we heard about the role of the

[2:19:36] courts and the differences that

[2:19:37] can exist from one judicial

[2:19:38] district to another. We heard

[2:19:40] from child welfare professionals

[2:19:42] about family time and the

[2:19:42] practical challenges of

[2:19:44] providing services we heard from

[2:19:46] victim advocates in domestic

[2:19:48] violence professionals about

[2:19:49] safety planning and the

[2:19:50] realities of highrisk cases and

[2:19:52] we heard about the legal

[2:19:54] considerations surrounding

[2:19:54] parental rights and due process.

[2:19:56] and most importantly we heard

[2:19:57] Lizzie's story

[2:20:00] want to thank Joe Walsh for

[2:20:01] having the courage to share her

[2:20:01] granddaughter's story with us

[2:20:06] is easy when we're discussing

[2:20:08] statutes protocols, provider

[2:20:08] qualifications and court

[2:20:10] procedures to lose sight of the

[2:20:11] fact that behind every one of

[2:20:14] these cases is a child in a

[2:20:15] family whose lives are affected

[2:20:16] by the decisions that we make.

[2:20:18] Lizzie reminds us why this

[2:20:20] conversation continues to

[2:20:20] matter.

[2:20:22] one of the clearest lessons from

[2:20:24] today is that Oklahoma is not

[2:20:26] starting from zero. Our current

[2:20:28] law establishes the Oklahoma

[2:20:28] Child Supervised

[2:20:32] visitsitationgrame. it provides

[2:20:32] for trained volunteers, judicial

[2:20:34] district supervised visitation

[2:20:36] teams, training requirements,

[2:20:38] written protocols, background

[2:20:38] checks and fitness determination

[2:20:39] for volunteers.

[2:20:42] Oklahoma law also provides that

[2:20:44] volunteers must be able to see

[2:20:46] and hear the interactions

[2:20:48] between the supervised parent

[2:20:50] and child and it requires

[2:20:52] professional settings in certain

[2:20:54] circumstances involving suicidal

[2:20:56] or violent behavior unless

[2:20:57] additional conditions are met.

[2:20:59] those are important protections

[2:21:02] but today's discussion also

[2:21:03] raises an important issue.

[2:21:06] having standards and statute is

[2:21:08] not the same as having

[2:21:08] consistent standards in

[2:21:09] practice.

[2:21:12] The research provided by the

[2:21:14] national conference of state

[2:21:16] Legislature shows that other

[2:21:16] states have addressed and

[2:21:18] have addressed supervised

[2:21:20] visitation through more detailed

[2:21:24] statewide standards governing

[2:21:24] provider qualifications,

[2:21:28] training, background screening,

[2:21:28] security procedures

[2:21:30] documentation, termination of

[2:21:32] visits certification monitoring

[2:21:34] and data collection. Those

[2:21:36] examples give us an opportunity

[2:21:38] to consider what Oklahoma's next

[2:21:39] step could look like.

[2:21:42] as we continue examining the

[2:21:42] possibility of Lizzie's law, I

[2:21:44] believe we should keep several

[2:21:45] principles in front of us.

[2:21:48] first, safety must be the

[2:21:50] foundation a supervised

[2:21:52] visitation program should have

[2:21:52] clear procedures for assessing

[2:21:56] risk, conducting visits,

[2:21:57] responding to emergencies and

[2:21:58] ending a visit when safety

[2:21:59] becomes a concern.

[2:22:02] national guidance from the US

[2:22:04] Department of Justice emphasizes

[2:22:04] the safety of both children and

[2:22:06] adult victims in supervised

[2:22:08] visitation and safe exchange

[2:22:09] settings

[2:22:09] Second

[2:22:12] the people entrusted with

[2:22:14] supervising these visits must be

[2:22:16] properly prepared. That means

[2:22:18] asking whether there should be

[2:22:19] consistent statewide minimum

[2:22:20] qualifications, background

[2:22:22] checks and training for

[2:22:24] professional providers and where

[2:22:24] appropriate volunteers

[2:22:26] California for example

[2:22:28] established detailed

[2:22:30] qualifications and training

[2:22:30] requirements for professional

[2:22:32] providers including training

[2:22:34] related to child abuse reporting

[2:22:36] recordkeeping screening and

[2:22:38] termination of visitation child

[2:22:40] development, confidentiality,

[2:22:42] substance abuse and domestic

[2:22:43] violence.

[2:22:46] those are the kinds of questions

[2:22:46] that Oklahoma should continue

[2:22:47] examining

[2:22:50] hi rd there must be meaningful

[2:22:50] documentation

[2:22:52] if something happens during a

[2:22:56] supervised visit. if a court

[2:22:56] order is violated, a child

[2:22:58] becomes distressed an allegation

[2:23:00] of abuse arises or a visit must

[2:23:02] be interrupted or terminated.

[2:23:04] there needs to be a reliable

[2:23:04] record

[2:23:06] California's framework for

[2:23:08] example requires providers to

[2:23:10] maintain records of visits,

[2:23:12] attendance violations and

[2:23:12] incidents of abuse and to

[2:23:14] document interruptions or

[2:23:16] terminations of visits.

[2:23:18] Documentation is not about

[2:23:18] creating unnecessary

[2:23:20] bureaucracy. It is about

[2:23:22] ensuring that courts have

[2:23:22] accurate information when they

[2:23:24] make decisions affecting a

[2:23:25] child's safety.

[2:23:28] ourth, accountability requires

[2:23:30] oversight. We should ask who is

[2:23:32] responsible for establishing

[2:23:34] standards who verifies that

[2:23:36] providers meet those standards

[2:23:36] who receives complaints who

[2:23:38] monitors compliances and what

[2:23:39] happens when standards are not

[2:23:39] followed.

[2:23:42] Florida provides one example of

[2:23:44] a statewide approach that

[2:23:44] includes uniform standards

[2:23:46] certification, monitoring, data

[2:23:48] collection and an advisory

[2:23:50] structure involving courts law

[2:23:51] enforcement, supervised

[2:23:52] visitation providers and other

[2:23:54] stakeholders. Again these

[2:23:56] examples are not necessarily a

[2:23:58] blueprint for Oklahoma but they

[2:23:59] demonstrate that other states

[2:24:00] have recognized the need for

[2:24:01] consistency and accountability.

[2:24:04] and we also have to talk about

[2:24:05] access

[2:24:08] because at the same time

[2:24:10] accountability cannot come at

[2:24:12] the expense of access. We have

[2:24:12] to recognize the realities faced

[2:24:13] by families in rural Oklahoma

[2:24:16] a standard that exists on paper

[2:24:18] but cannot be accessed by a

[2:24:20] family because there's no

[2:24:20] qualified provider within a

[2:24:22] reasonable distance does not

[2:24:24] fully serve that family so as we

[2:24:26] consider stronger sta standards

[2:24:28] we must also consider provider

[2:24:30] capacity rural communities,

[2:24:32] affordability, transportation

[2:24:33] and sustainable funding

[2:24:36] safety and accessibility cannot

[2:24:38] be treated as competing values.

[2:24:38] We need to look for ways to

[2:24:39] address both

[2:24:42] we also heard an important

[2:24:44] reminder today that this

[2:24:46] conversation must respect due

[2:24:46] process and parental

[2:24:48] rightsrengthening supervised

[2:24:50] visitation standards does not

[2:24:52] mean eliminating the role of the

[2:24:53] courts or replacing judicial

[2:24:54] decision making with the

[2:24:56] statewide administrative system.

[2:24:58] It means giving courts and

[2:24:58] families a framework that is

[2:25:00] clear, consistent and safety

[2:25:02] informed. The goal should be to

[2:25:04] ensure that when a court

[2:25:04] determines supervise

[2:25:06] visititation is necessary, the

[2:25:08] supervision actually provides

[2:25:10] what the court intended a safe

[2:25:12] environment for the child and

[2:25:14] appropriate accountability for

[2:25:15] everyone involved.

[2:25:18] so where do we go from here for

[2:25:20] me the question coming out of

[2:25:21] today's study is not simply

[2:25:22] whether Oklahoma should have

[2:25:24] supervised visitation we already

[2:25:26] do. The question is whether we

[2:25:27] can make the system more

[2:25:30] consistent, more transparent,

[2:25:30] more accountable and more

[2:25:32] focused on safety and I believe

[2:25:34] today's testimony gives us

[2:25:35] several areas to continue

[2:25:35] examining.

[2:25:38] we owe it

[2:25:41] to the children we owe it to

[2:25:42] parents we owe it to

[2:25:44] grandparents and caregivers. We

[2:25:46] owe it to the professionals who

[2:25:48] are being asked to carry out

[2:25:50] these difficult responsibilities

[2:25:50] and ultimately we owe it to the

[2:25:51] integrity

[2:25:54] excuse me we owe it to the

[2:25:56] integrity of our court system.

[2:25:58] today's testimony has given us a

[2:26:00] great deal to consider and I'm

[2:26:00] very grateful to every person

[2:26:02] who contributed their expertise

[2:26:04] and their experience. Our

[2:26:06] responsibility now is to take

[2:26:08] what we've learned, continue

[2:26:09] listening to the people closest

[2:26:10] to this work, examine the

[2:26:12] evidence and determine what

[2:26:14] where Oklahoma can strengthen

[2:26:14] its approach.

[2:26:16] the purpose of this study is not

[2:26:18] to assume that we already have

[2:26:20] every answer. in fact I had very

[2:26:20] few answers when I started this

[2:26:21] study

[2:26:24] but it is to ensure that we are

[2:26:26] making a concerted effort to

[2:26:28] asking the right questions and I

[2:26:30] believe today has helped us to

[2:26:31] do that

[2:26:32] thank you Mr Chair

[2:26:38] thank you all for your

[2:26:38] participation in the study. I

[2:26:40] know that we have a few online

[2:26:41] as well. thank you for joining

[2:26:41] us virtually

[2:26:44] senator Hicks thank you for

[2:26:44] bringing this forward looking

[2:26:45] forward to

[2:26:48] seeing what legislation may come

[2:26:49] out of it at some point in the

[2:26:49] future

[2:26:52] seeing no further business

[2:26:54] before Senate judiciary our next

[2:26:56] meeting is scheduled for

[2:26:58] October6 interim study by fuller

[2:27:00] daniels it's a joint study with

[2:27:02] the house and then we'll have

[2:27:04] a follow up after that next one

[2:27:06] will be on 10 sens so members of

[2:27:08] the committee look forward to

[2:27:10] seeing you then having no

[2:27:10] further businessenate judiciary

[2:27:11] is adjourned

Judiciary

Transcript