clear and convincing standard in Oklahoma

2011E.g., In re H.A.M., 25 Kan.

2006E.g., In re H.A.M., 25 Kan.App.2d 289 , 961 P.2d 716, 719 (1998).

1996For a discussion of the clear-and-convincing standard of proof, see Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424-425, 431-432 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808-1809, 1812-1813 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (in civil commitment proceedings a clear-and-convincing standard of proof is required to meet due process demands). .

1996For a discussion of the clear-and-convincing standard of proof, see Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 424-425, 431-432 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808-1809, 1812-1813 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (in civil commitment proceedings a clear-and-convincing standard of proof is required to meet due process demands). .

2010See In the Matter of S.B.C., 2002 OK 83 , 64 P.3d 1080 (announcing the applicability of the clear and convincing standard of proof and incorporating that into the appellate standard of review for termination of parental rights cases).

2010See In the Matter of S.B.C., 2002 OK 83 , 64 P.3d 1080 (announcing the applicability of the clear and convincing standard of proof and incorporating that into the appellate standard of review for termination of parental rights cases).

1994See Matter of Adoption of C.M.G., 656 P.2d 262 (Okl. 1982).

1994See Matter of Adoption of C.M.G., 656 P.2d 262 (Okl.1982).

2023Lott v. State, 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 .

2023Lott v. State, 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 136 , 98 P.3d 318, 351 .

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2016"When making a determination of a child's eligibility for adoptmn without consent, an appellate court will reweW issues of fact under a clear and convincing standard hi In re Adoption of G.D.J., 2011 OK 77, ¶ 7 , 261 P.3d 1159 (citation omitted).

2016"When making a determination of a child's eligibility for adoptmn without consent, an appellate court will reweW issues of fact under a clear and convincing standard hi In re Adoption of G.D.J., 2011 OK 77, ¶ 7 , 261 P.3d 1159 (citation omitted).

2016In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 2003 OK CIV APP 24, 177 , 67 P.3d 359 ("This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party' opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard."). .

2016In re Adoption of Baby Girl B., 2003 OK CIV APP 24, 177 , 67 P.3d 359 ("This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party' opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard."). .

2010Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence is defined as "that measure of degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established." In re C.G., 1981 OK 131 n. 12 , 637 P.2d 66 , 71 citing In re Sherol A.S., 1978 OK 103 , 581 P.2d 884 . ¶ 7 After canvassing the record in the instant matter to determine if the trial court's finding rest on the clear-and-convincing standard, we find sufficient evidence exists to terminate Parents' parental rights.

2010Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence is defined as "that measure of degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established." In re C.G., 1981 OK 131 n. 12 , 637 P.2d 66 , 71 citing In re Sherol A.S., 1978 OK 103 , 581 P.2d 884 . ¶ 7 After canvassing the record in the instant matter to determine if the trial court's finding rest on the clear-and-convincing standard, we find sufficient evidence exists to terminate Parents' parental rights.

1999See Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists, 1996 OK 41 , 913 P.2d 1339 .

1996We recently addressed this issue in Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of the State of Oklahoma, 913 P.2d 1339 (Okla.1996).

2020Frederick , 2017 OK CR 12, ¶ 166, 400 P.3d at 827.

2020Frederick , 2017 OK CR 12, ¶ 166 , 400 P.3d at 827.

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2020As we stated in Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 81, 253 P.3d at 995 the clear and convincing standard of Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b) is a less demanding test than the test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "[I]t is less of a burden to show, even by clear and convincing evidence, merely a strong possibility that counsel was ineffective than to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's performance actually was deficient and that but for the unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different as is required by

2020Frederick , 2017 OK CR 12, ¶ 166, 400 P.3d at 827.

2020Frederick , 2017 OK CR 12, ¶ 166 , 400 P.3d at 827.

2016See also In re J.S. , 2008 OK CIV APP 15, ¶ 4, 177 P.3d 590 (heightened beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof absent from the language of § 1912(d) and applies only to factual determination required by 1912(f) to be made in ICWA termination cases; lesser standard of clear and convincing evidence applicable to all other state law requirements for termination). ¶31 Similarly, because § 1912(f) does not apply under the facts of this case, expert testimony that the continued custody of B.T.S. by Mother is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to B.T.S. was not required. 9

2016See also In re J.S. , 2008 OK CIV APP 15, ¶ 4, 177 P.3d 590 (heightened beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof absent from the language of § 1912(d) and applies only to factual determination required by 1912(f) to be made in ICWA termination cases; lesser standard of clear and convincing evidence applicable to all other state law requirements for termination). ¶31 Similarly, because § 1912(f) does not apply under the facts of this case, expert testimony that the continued custody of B.T.S. by Mother is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to B.T.S. was not required. 9

2016In re Adoption of Baby Girl B. , 2003 OK CIV APP 24, ¶ 77, 67 P.3d 359 ("This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard."). 24 In re BTW , 2010 OK 69, ¶ 16, 241 P.3d 199, 206 ("Abuse of discretion is the standard of review for the conclusion we reach here . . .

2016In re Adoption of Baby Girl B. , 2003 OK CIV APP 24, ¶ 77, 67 P.3d 359 ("This Court holds that, in the specific context of Section 1915(b) placements, the party opposing the statutory preferences must establish good cause according to the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard."). 24 In re BTW , 2010 OK 69, ¶ 16, 241 P.3d 199, 206 ("Abuse of discretion is the standard of review for the conclusion we reach here . . .

2015"The power of a judge to impose significant punishment for direct contempt immediately and without the full panoply of due process rests upon the absolute necessity of maintaining a structured order in our courts." Id. at ¶ 4, 181 P.3d at 724 (quoting Autry v. State , 2007 OK CR 41, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 212, 214) . 21 O.S. 2011 § 567 provides for a right to jury trial for indirect contempts , but a clear and convincing standard of proof applies, instead of a reasonable doubt standard.

2015"The power of a judge to impose significant punishment for direct contempt immediately and without the full panoply of due process rests upon the absolute necessity of maintaining a structured order in our courts." Id. at ¶ 4, 181 P.3d at 724 (quoting Autry v. State , 2007 OK CR 41, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 212, 214) . 21 O.S. 2011 § 567 provides for a right to jury trial for indirect contempts , but a clear and convincing standard of proof applies, instead of a reasonable doubt standard.

2015Whillock v. Whillock, 550 P.2d 558, 560 (Okl. 1976) .

2015Whillock v. Whillock, 550 P.2d 558, 560 (Okl. 1976) .

2011Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. at 2513 (applying the clear- and-convincing standard to review of summary judgment motions in defamation cases when the factual dispute concerns actual malice).

2011Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255 , 106 S.Ct. at 2513 (applying the clear- and-convincing standard to review of summary judgment motions in defamation cases when the factual dispute concerns actual malice).