Guardianship Case: Protecting a Child from Further Harm
We represented the guardians of a young girl whose safety had been repeatedly put at risk in her mother’s home. Over several years, the child was exposed to ongoing domestic violence, disturbing media, and inappropriate physical contact by an adult in the household. Mental-health professionals later described this pattern as traumatizing and consistent with grooming behavior.
After the guardians stepped in and provided a stable home, the mother asked the court to terminate the guardianship and return the child to a household that now included the same adult the child feared most. The trial court denied that request, and the case was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court (2025 OK 2).
Legal Strategy
Our role was to maintain the guardianship and protect the child from further harm. We focused on two core legal questions: whether the original safety concerns had been fully addressed and whether ending the guardianship would be detrimental to the child’s welfare under Oklahoma guardianship law. We highlighted extensive testimony from the child’s psychologist, therapist, and Guardian ad Litem (GAL), all of whom described significant trauma.
We warned that returning the child to the prior environment, especially with renewed contact with the adult she feared, could trigger self-harm and serious emotional damage. We also emphasized that the mother had married the very person the guardianship order prohibited the child from contacting, meaning the main impediment that led to guardianship had not actually been removed.
Challenges
The mother argued that she had substantially completed the court-ordered conditions to regain custody (steady work, housing, counseling, substance-abuse assessment, and child support) and claimed the guardianship was only meant to be temporary. On paper, much of that plan was satisfied. The challenge was to show that “box-checking” did not equal safety and that the child’s best interests still required ongoing protection.
We also had to overcome allegations that the guardians were influencing the child’s statements. The record established that the child, not the guardians, consistently expressed fear, showed signs of trauma and self-harm, and repeatedly told professionals she did not feel safe around the adult living with her mother. These independent findings played a central role in protecting her through continued guardianship.
Resolution
The trial court retained the guardianship and set a future review, finding that ending it would be harmful to the child. On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court (2025 OK 2) affirmed that decision in full. The Court held that:
- The guardianship could not be terminated simply because the mother had completed most of the conditions;
- The key impediment, her relationship with the adult the child was barred from contacting, was still present; and
- The child’s best interests and safety outweighed any parental claim to immediate reunification.
As a result, the guardianship remained in effect, and the child stayed in a stable, out-of-state home with ongoing therapy and support. The Supreme Court reinforced an important principle: in Oklahoma guardianship cases, a child’s safety and welfare come first, even when a parent has made substantial progress on paper.