NOVEMBER 2025 | 47 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL to jury duty may also mean that your pool of jurors may not have experienced the same hardships a client in a termination case may have faced.25 All of this is to say that the jury in a termination trial may not truly be the client’s peers. The client will have to consider the potential jury pool and whether they prefer to have their case judged by this likely group of individuals or the court. Finally, it must be noted that parents and children may have options other than proceeding to trial. If reunification is not possible or not what the client wants, Title 30 guardianships, permanent guardianships and adoptions with visitation may be more palatable resolutions. Of course, the decision ultimately belongs to the client. Even if the local practice is to waive jury trial in every case, practitioners must advise their clients of their constitutional and statutory right to a jury trial as well as the ways in which that right can be lost. It will always be a difficult choice, but with good advice and information, at least it can be an informed choice. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Evan Humphreys is the managing attorney of appellate practice for the Oklahoma Office of Family Representation, which contracts with private attorneys to provide high-quality legal representation to parents and children in juvenile deprived cases at trial and on appeal. ENDNOTES 1. Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 217 (1916). 2. Keeter v. State ex rel. Saye, 1921 OK 197, ¶5, 198 P. 866. 3. J.V. v. State Dep’t of Insts., Social & Rehab. Servs., 1977 OK 224, 572 P.2d 1283. 4. A.E. v. State, 1987 OK 76, 743 P.2d 1041. 5. Gray v. Upp, 1997 OK 98, ¶2, 943 P.2d 592. 6. State Question No. 623, available at http://bit.ly/46Fy8tF (last accessed July 22, 2025). 7. 10A O.S. §1-4-306(A)(2)(c). 8. Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976). 9. 10A O.S. §1-4-601(D)(3). 10. 10A O.S. §1-4-502(A). 11. Matter of K.S., 1990 OK CIV APP 106, ¶8, 807 P.2d 292. 12. 10A O.S. §1-4-502(B). 13. Children, 2025 Okla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 375 (H.B. 1965). 14. A.E., at ¶22. 15. Matter of E.J.T., 2024 OK 14, 544 P.3d 950. 16. 10A O.S. §1-4-502(B). 17. Matter of H.M.W., 2013 OK 44, ¶7, 304 P.3d 738. 18. Matter of F.B., 2025 OK 25, P.3d. 19. 10A O.S. §1-4-905(A)(5). 20. F.B., at ¶19. 21. 10A O.S. §1-4-905(A). 22. Matter of J.B., 2024 OK CIV APP 22, 558 P.3d 39. 23. See The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Dashboard 2025, Admin. for Children & Families, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., available at http://bit.ly/47amlT4 (last accessed Oct. 14, 2025). 24. “Race and the Jury,” Equal Justice Initiative website, http://bit.ly/4gWWCC6 (last accessed Sept. 25, 2025). 25. Jule Pattison-Gordon, “How Courts Are Trying To Make Jury Duty More Appealing,” Governing website, March 25, 2025, http://bit.ly/4mYeSfU. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==