Each year the Oklahoma Bar Foundation looks to groups that help with representation of our state’s youngest citizens – our children. Two of those groups with scores of children needing the help of Oklahoma lawyers are Oklahoma Lawyers for Children and Tulsa Lawyers for Children. Unfortunately, Oklahoma and Tulsa County seem to literally have children stacked on top of each other waiting for legal assistance.

Tulsa Lawyers for Children (“TLC”) relates a riveting story about one such case, as told by attorney Anne B. Sublett, president of the Tulsa organization. The work being done on behalf of deprived, abused and neglected children is too important to skip. Please read on to learn how you can help.

NOW THAT’S VIGOROUS ADVOCACY!

Just how far should a good lawyer go in “vigorously representing” children in a deprived case when the children want to go home to a mother charged with a felony for having “permitted” the molestation of her daughter? Pretty far, if you ask one volunteer lawyer for Tulsa Lawyers for Children.

The TLC volunteer in the case, retired Federal District Judge Thomas J. Brett, was court appointed to represent, pro bono, four children, two boys and two girls aged four, 10, 13 and 15. The children’s mother, Susan, was married to John, who was the biological father of Susan’s youngest child and stepfather to the other three. Susan worked at a local Tulsa restaurant while John, disabled from an on-the-job back injury, stayed home with the kids.

The allegations in the deprived case that led to removal of the four children from Susan’s and John’s home were that John had sexually molested Jane, Susan’s 15-year-old daughter. Jane recalled having awakened from a nap one afternoon with her blouse and bra around her neck and her shorts and panties around her ankles. She didn’t remember being molested, but she did recall that, prior to falling asleep she had been lying on a bed with John watching television. She recalled that John had brought her a glass of lemonade that, unknown to her at the time, he had spiked with vodka. When Jane awoke from her nap, she surmised from the disarray of her clothing, but did not recall, that John had molested her. DNA testing of material found on Jane’s breast during a later physical examination confirmed the material was John’s.

After a police investigation, the district attorney’s office filed felony charges against John, alleging child sexual abuse, and Susan, alleging that she had permitted the abuse. Susan, who had not been home when the molestation occurred, had initially not been sure whether to believe John’s adamant denial of molesting Jane, particularly since Jane could not remember what happened. She told the investigating police officer, however, that if the DNA testing confirmed that John had molested Jane, the police didn’t need to “take action against my husband, because if it proves true, I will kill him myself.”

On a visit with his clients at their foster home — the home of one of their aunts — Judge Brett learned from the aunt that Susan had agreed and was scheduled to plead guilty to the felony charge on the following Tuesday. His legal antennae went up immediately. Why, he wondered, would a woman plead guilty to a felony when the evidence of her knowledge of her child’s molestation was so thin? His question was answered when he spoke to Susan’s attorney. Susan understood from the state that she could get her children back only if she pled guilty and she was prepared to do anything to get her children back with her. What she didn’t understand was that, in fact, such a plea in her criminal case would make it much more difficult for her to prevail in the deprived case. Among other barriers she would face would be that for the next 10 years, she would have to register annually as a sex offender.

With the permission of Susan’s attorney, Judge Brett spoke directly to the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case against Susan. A little surprised at first at having to argue about an agreed upon guilty plea with a former federal judge who was not even the defendant’s attorney, the assistant district attorney was at first unwavering in his insistence on prosecuting the charge against Susan as a felony. Judge Brett, however, knowing a thing or two about criminal prosecutions, also persisted, pointing out the paucity of evidence against Susan and the manifest injustice of prosecuting her for a felony while the molester escaped prosecution — at the least for the time being — by leaving Oklahoma.

The story has a happy ending, though. After more thought, the assistant district attorney reconsidered and offered Susan a decidedly better deal: she was allowed to plead guilty to a charge of misdemeanor child abuse, was given two years probation with the possibility of later expungement of her criminal conviction. She is now divorced from John and, much to the delight of her four children, has been reunited with all of them.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

We ask you to help in the children’s advocacy work through contributions and participation in important OBF programs such as the OBF Fellow and IOLTA programs. Through grants provided by the foundation last year, both groups are growing and expanding. Tulsa was able to hire a part-time assistant allowing TLC to join with Tulsa University in recruiting and training law students to assist attorney volunteers with cases. Law student assistance will boost the number of cases TLC is able to accept. Funding will also provide more training sessions for new volunteers and provide current attorney volunteers with updates of changes in relevant law. Oklahoma Lawyers for Children received funding to expand their training programs into Cleveland County and El Reno. Please contact Tulsa Lawyers for Children at (918) 585-1711 or Oklahoma Lawyers for Children at (405) 232-4453 to become a vigorous advocate for our children — prior child advocacy experience is not required.

Mail your OBF Fellow enrollment form today and help us to help others. Join the Fellows and be rewarded by getting more out of being an Oklahoma lawyer.