Oklahoma

 
Oklahoma.png
 

The Laws That Should Protect Our Children

Current Civil SOL in a nutshell

SOL vs. perp: As of November 1, 2017: Age 45. Click to read Oklahoma House Bill 1470 , which codified this change. SOL vs. perp: Before November 1, 2017: +2 years from majority = Age 20 SOL vs. employer: +2 years from majority = Age 20

Majority Tolling: √ Age 18 Discovery Tolling:

Liberal (+ 2) intentional conduct

Narrow (+ 2) years negligence

Statute of Repose: No claims after age 38

SOL: + 2 years from liberal discovery for actions based on intentional conduct subject to 20 year from majority SOR. (Age 38); + 2years from majority or narrow common law discovery for negligence

  1. 12 Okl. St. § 95 (6) “An action based on intentional conduct brought by any person for recovery of damages for injury suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse incidents or exploitation as defined by Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes or incest can only be brought within the latter of the following periods: a. within two (2) years of the act alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or b. within two (2) years of the time the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by the act or that the act caused the injury for which the claim is brought. Provided, however, that the time limit for commencement of an action pursuant to this paragraph is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or until five (5) years after the perpetrator is released from the custody of a state, federal or local correctional facility or jail, whichever is later. No action may be brought against the alleged perpetrator or the estate of the alleged perpetrator after the death of such alleged perpetrator, unless the perpetrator was convicted of a crime of sexual abuse involving the claimant. An action pursuant to this paragraph must be based upon objective verifiable evidence in order for the victim to recover damages for injuries suffered by reason of such sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest. The evidence should include both proof that the victim had psychologically repressed the memory of the facts upon which the claim was predicated and that there was corroborating evidence that the sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest actually occurred. The victim need not establish which act in a series of continuing sexual abuse incidents, exploitation incidents, or incest caused the injury complained of, but may compute the date of discovery from the date of discovery of the last act by the same perpetrator which is part of a common scheme or plan of sexual abuse, exploitation, or incest. Provided further, any action based on intentional conduct specified in paragraph 7 of this section must be commenced within twenty (20) years of the victim reaching the age of eighteen (18);12 Okl. St. § 95

  2. 12 Okl. St. § 95(3) Within two (2) years: An action for trespass upon real property; an action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property; an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated; an action for relief on the ground of fraud — the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud;

TOLLING

  1. Majority, yes. Age 18. Okl. St. § 95 (6)

a. “Provided, however, that the time limit for commencement of an action pursuant to this paragraph is tolled for a child until the child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or until five (5) years after the perpetrator is released from the custody of a state, federal or local correctional facility or jail, whichever is later.”

  1. Discovery, yes. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95(6)(b) (liberal)

a. Common law version was narrow:

Current Criminal SOL in a nutshell

As of November 1, 2017: None if: physical evidence is collected preserved for DNA testing, and the identity of offender is subsequently established through the use of DNA profiling. Prosecution under this exception must be commenced within three years of identification. Click to read Oklahoma House Bill 1468, which codified this change.

Before November 1, 2017: Up to age 45 for rape or forcible sodomy, sodomy, lewd or indecent proposals or acts against children, involving minors in pornography.

Within 12 years of “discovery” of the crime, which can occur up to victim’s age 19 (Appears to operate at SOR at age 31? Age 19 +12 years. Text: “Prosecutions for the crime of rape or forcible sodomy, sodomy, lewd or indecent proposals or acts against children, involving minors in pornography pursuant to Section 886,888, 1111, 1111.1, 1113, 1114, 1021.2, 1021.3 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, child abuse pursuant to Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and child trafficking pursuant to Section 866 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes shall be commenced within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime.”). 22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (1); 22 Okl. St. § 152 (L). Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, P1, 204 P.3d 777, 779, 2009 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9, 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (finding that the statute of limitations begins to run and the offense has been discovered for purposes of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152(C), when any person (including the victim) other than the wrongdoer or someone in pari delicto with the wrongdoer has knowledge of both the act and its criminal nature. The crime has not been discovered during any period that the crime is concealed because of fear induced by threats made by the wrongdoer or anyone acting in pari delicto with the wrongdoer.)

22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (1) (“Prosecutions for the crime of rape or forcible sodomy, sodomy, lewd or indecent proposals or acts against children, involving minors in pornography pursuant to Section 886, 888, 1111, 1111.1, 1113, 1114, 1021.2, 1021.3 or 1123 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, child abuse pursuant to Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and child trafficking pursuant to Section 866 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes shall be commenced within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime.”)

22 Okl. St. § 152 (L) (“As used in paragraph 1 of subsection C of this section, “discovery” means the date that a physical or sexually related crime involving a victim under the age of eighteen (18) years of age is reported to a law enforcement agency, up to and including one (1) year from the eighteenth birthday of the child.”)

Defendant’s prosecution for rape and forced oral sodomy involving his minor stepdaughter was not barred by the seven-year statute of limitations under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152, because, although more than seven years had passed since the commission of the offenses, the victim told no one about the crimes because she was afraid of defendant, who had been a police officer, and while the victim remained silent about defendant’s sexual abuse, the statute of limitations was tolled. Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, 204 P.3d 777, 2009 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). 22 Okl. St. § 152

Trial court properly ruled that defendant’s prosecution for lewd molestation of a child was time-barred because the child victim had knowledge of the acts when they occurred, knew at the time that the acts were wrong, and was not threatened when the acts occurred; thus, defendant’s crime was “discovered” for purposes of the five-year statute of limitations when the acts occurred, and the state charged defendant with the crime over five years after the acts occurred. State v. Day, 1994 OK CR 67, 882 P.2d 1096, 1994 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 77, 65 Okla. B.J. 3388 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

SOL was changed from +7 to +12 in 2005. 2005 OK. HB 1013, 2005 OK. ALS 101, 2005 OK. Laws 101, 2005 OK. Ch. 101, 2005 OK. HB 1013

Prosecution for child sexual abuse under Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7115(E) was barred by the three-year statute of limitations that was in effect at the time the crime was committed in 1998. The fact that this section was subsequently amended to enlarge the statute of limitations for the crime to seven years did not change the result, as the amended statute did not apply retroactively. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, 152 P.3d 244, 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 53 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).

22 Okl. St. § 152 (C) (2) (a)-(c) (“However, prosecutions for the crimes listed in paragraph 1 of this subsection may be commenced at any time after the commission of the offense if: a. the victim notified law enforcement within twelve (12) years after the discovery of the crime, b. physical evidence is collected and preserved that is capable of being tested to obtain a profile from deoxyearibonucleic acid (DNA), and c. the identity of the offender is subsequently established through the use of a DNA profile using evidence listed in subparagraph b of this paragraph.

A prosecution under this exception must be commenced within three (3) years from the date on which the identity of the suspect is established by DNA testing.”)

Age of Majority: 18. See, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 13.
Age of Consent: 16. See, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1123.

Age of Marriage with Parental Consent: 16 (under 16 with judicial consent only in cases of a seduction or paternity suit or if there is a pregnancy or illegitimate child).
Age of Marriage without Parental Consent: 18.
See, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, § 3.


Medical Neglect Statute

CIVIL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to mean a child is abused or neglected for the sole reason the parent, guar­dian or person having custody or control of a child, in good faith, selects and depends upon spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination, for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child.

Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent a court from immediately assuming custody of a child. . . and ordering whatever action may be necessary, including medical treatment, to protect the child’s health or welfare.

Oklahoma Statutes §10A-1-1-105(47)

Nothing in the Oklahoma Children’s Code shall be construed to mean a child is deprived for the sole reason the parent, guardian or person having custody or control of a child, in good faith, selects and depends upon spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination, for the treat­ment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child.

Oklahoma Statutes §10A-1-1-105(20)

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to exempt or prohibit any person from reporting any suspec­ted child abuse or neglect pursuant to subsection B of this section.

CRIMINAL MEDICAL NEGLECT STATUTE

OKLAHOMA defenses to felony neglect, omission to provide, and child endangerment

As used in this subsection, “child neglect” means the willful or malicious neglect, as defined by paragraph 46 of Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, of a child under eighteen (18) years of age by another.

Oklahoma Statutes title 21 §843.5 (C)

Note: Title 10A §1-1-105 includes a religious exemption.

[The definition of the offense of omission to provide for a child shall not] be con­strued to mean a child is endangered for the sole reason the parent, guardian or person having custody or control of a child, in good faith, selects and depends upon spiritual means alone through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination, for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child, provided that medical care shall be provided where permanent physical damage could result to such child, and that the laws, rules, and regulations relating to communicable disease and sanitary matters are not violated.

Oklahoma Statutes title 21 §852

[A person having custody or control over a child] commits child endangerment when the person knowingly permits physical or sexual abuse or a child or . . . knowingly permits a child to be present at a location where a controlled dangerous substance is being manufactured or attempted to be manufactured. . . .

The provisions of this section shall not apply to any parent, guardian or other person having custody or control of a child for the sole reason that the parent, guardian or other person in good faith selects and depends upon spiritual means or prayer for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care for such child. This subsection shall in no way limit or modify the protections afforded said child in Section 852 of this title.

Oklahoma Statutes title 21 §852.1


Religous Liberty Statute

Religious liberty statute that could put children at risk

Current Law: 51 OKL.ST.ANN. § 251-258

Enacted: June 1, 2000

§ 251. Short title This act may be cited as the “Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act”.

§ 252. Definitions In this act:

  1. “Demonstrates” means the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion under the standard of clear and convincing evidence are met;

  2. “Exercise of religion” means the exercise of religion under Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

  3. “Fraudulent claim” means a claim that is dishonest in fact or that is made principally for a patently improper purpose, such as to harass the opposing party;

  4. “Frivolous claim” means a claim which lacks merit under existing law and which cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

  5. “Governmental entity” means any branch, department, agency, or instrumentality of state government, or any official or other person acting under color of state law, or any political subdivision of this state;

  6. “Prevails” means to obtain prevailing party status as defined by courts construing the federal Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

  7. “Substantially burden” means to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practice. Read More § 253. Burden upon free exercise of religion A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, no governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. B. No governmental entity shall substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
  8. Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
  9. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

§ 254. Correctional facility regulation–Compelling state interest A state or local correctional facility’s regulation must be considered in furtherance of a compelling state interest if the facility demonstrates that the religious activity:

  1. Sought to be engaged by a prisoner is presumptively dangerous to the health or safety of that prisoner; or
  2. Poses a direct threat to the health, safety, or security of other prisoners, correctional staff, or the public.

§ 255. Construction A. Nothing in this act1 shall be construed to:

  1. Authorize any government entity to substantially burden any religious belief;
  2. Authorize same sex marriages, unions, or the equivalent thereof; or
  3. Affect, interpret, or in any way address those portions of Article 1, Section 2, and Article 2, Section 5, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, or the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that prohibit laws respecting the establishment of religion.

B. Granting governmental funds, benefits, or exemptions to the extent permissible under paragraph 3 of subsection A of this section shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, “granting government funds, benefits, or exemptions” shall not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. This provision does not in and of itself require vouchers.

§ 256. Remedies–Costs–Attorney Fees A. Any person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened by a governmental entity in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding and may obtain declaratory relief or monetary damages. B. Any person who prevails in any proceeding to enforce this act against a governmental entity may recover reasonable costs and attorney fees.

§ 257. Frivolous or fraudulent claims Any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have abused the protection of this act by filing a frivolous or fraudulent claim may be assessed the court costs of the governmental entity and may be enjoined from filing further claims under this act without leave of court.

§ 258. Governmental authority Notwithstanding any provision of this act, a governmental entity has no less authority to adopt or apply laws and regulations in a nondiscriminatory manner concerning zoning, land use planning, traffic management, urban nuisance, or historic preservation, than the authority of the governmental entity that existed under the law prior to the passage of this act. This section does not affect the authority of a governmental entity to adopt or apply laws and regulations as that authority has been interpreted by any court.

2016 Pending Bills:

HB 1371 – An Act relating to the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act; amending 51 O.S. 2011, Section 252, which relates to definitions; adding certain definition; prohibiting state or subdivision from making certain claim under certain action; providing for codification; and providing an effective date. (Last Updated 2/25/15)

//www.oklegislature.gov/Billinfo.aspx?Bill=HB1371

2015 Enrolled Legislation:

HB 1007 – An Act relating to marriage; prohibiting requirement of religious official to solemnize a marriage that violates their conscience or religious beliefs; providing for civil immunity; defining terms; providing for codification; and providing an effective date. (Final Version as of 4/23/15)

//www.oklegislature.gov/Billinfo.aspx?Bill=HB1007