OCCY board votes to ask attorney general whether jury-trial timing in termination cases raises constitutional questions

The Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth voted to ask the Oklahoma Attorney General whether limiting or eliminating jury trials in parental-termination cases would require a constitutional amendment, after members debated a compromise in legislation that requires a jury trial to be held within six months of a parent's request.

Deanna Chancellor, chair of the local board, said the six-month compromise in what members referred to as Bill 706 still leaves “a really long time for a young child,” and called for continued work to narrow delays. “It's ridiculous,” Chancellor said of the delay when a jury trial can take years in some counties.

Judge Paul Hess of Canadian County described how capacity varies across counties and said, “it comes down to the counties … we can do a jury trial within a month” in larger jurisdictions but acknowledged smaller counties often lack regular jury terms. Board members discussed alternatives raised during the meeting, including shorter statutory deadlines, bench trials in other counties, regional “roving” trial teams and better data collection to show whether jury requests are causing delays.

After discussion the board moved and the members took a roll-call vote to make a formal request to the Attorney General's office for an opinion on whether the change would conflict with the state constitution. The chair announced the motion passed by roll call.

Board members also debated whether to pursue a legislative approach now or seek a court decision first. Several members urged collecting better county-level data on jury requests and filing dates before pursuing further legislative change. Staff and volunteer members said the state case-management systems lack a consistent field to record when a jury trial is requested and when a termination petition is filed; the board asked staff to explore short-term fixes in the PARP/PARB dataset and to report back.

The board's formal vote to request an Attorney General opinion is the next procedural step; members said they expect further follow-up at a future meeting once the AG office responds or the board refines a data-collection plan.