Sex Allegations Draw Reciprocal Sanction

An Arkansas sanction has resulted in a six-month suspension as reciprocal discipline by the Oklahoma Supreme Court

The Rule 3.1, [Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct] violation was based upon her prosecuting a guardianship action on allegations of sexual, physical and psychological abuse of the three children by the ex-boyfriend (father of the children) without sufficient evidence to support any of her claims. Her nearly 200-page original petition mainly focused on her accusations of sexual abuse. The later submitted substitute petition also focused on sexual abuse allegations. The Rule 8.4(d), ARPC violation was based upon her filing the original petition without sealing it, and including the full names, addresses, dates of birth and a picture of the three children in violation of Arkansas Rules. In addition, she provided a copy of the original petition to the children’s school principal the day after she filed it. After reading the petition, Judge Magness sealed it sua sponte that same day. The Respondent claimed not to have known it was sealed by the judge prior to delivering a copy to the principal.

Due process in the original proceeding

The record reflects that the Respondent had ample time to prepare a defense in the Arkansas proceedings. A hearing, which she had notice of for months, was timely held. Witnesses were called and testimony was given. Exhibits were introduced. Afterwards, the Respondent filed multiple post-trial motions. The Panel reviewed her arguments and determined she was afforded adequate due process. It found that even under her cited caselaw, requiring adequate notice, and her own admissions, she had notice of the December 16, 2022 hearing. She also had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Under our jurisprudence, compliance with due process simply requires that the OBA allege facts sufficient to put the attorney on notice of the charges and allow an opportunity to respond to the allegations. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Bednar, 2019 OK 12, ¶13, 441 P.3d 91, 97, citing State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Giger, 2003 OK 61, ¶14 n.17, 72 P.3d 27, 34 n.17 (citing State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91, ¶19, 863 P.2d 1136, 1143). The Respondent received notice of the charges and was allowed to confront the evidence against her in the Arkansas proceedings. We hold, the record is clear that she received adequate due process in the Arkansas disciplinary proceedings.

The misconduct

The Respondent and the father of the children were long time neighbors. The father and his wife (mother of the children) divorced, and father was granted sole custody of all three children. Thereafter, in March 2021, the father and the Respondent started a relationship which soon became romantic. The relationship lasted for two months. It ended after father found out that the Respondent had reported him to a child abuse hotline. In May 2021, the Respondent contacted the hotline and reported abuse. The case was referred to DHS which referred the matter for an interview at a child advocacy center. On May 27, 2021, all three children were interviewed at the center. The record reflects that the interview determined the claims were unsubstantiated and no further DHS or any police investigation was ever commenced. Over the next two months the Respondent hounded the father’s extended family and the ex-wife. On August 2, 2021, the Respondent filed her guardianship petition. A month later, she filed a substitute petition.

In the November 9, 2021 sanctions order, Judge Magness highlighted some of the alleged sexual abuse allegations made by the Respondent in both her petition and substitute petition. Judge Magness concluded in his order that the Respondent “viewed regular, normal, routine interactions between a father and his children and sexualized the interactions. In summary, there simply was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations in the Substituted Petition.” Judge Magness also testified at the Arkansas disciplinary hearing. He testified that at trial he found out her allegations of abuse were grossly exaggerated and false. He found that the Respondent sexualized everything, “she sees what she wants to see and hears what she wants to hear,” and he believed that she was motivated by either “delusions with good intentions or bad intentions. But it’s completely false.” He could find no way a reasonable person could have come to the same conclusions as the Respondent concerning the allegations she made. Judge Magness was also concerned about the fact that the Respondent continued a sexual relationship with the father even after she claimed to believe he was molesting his children. The Respondent testified that she had to continue a sexual relationship with the father in order to obtain more information of abuse.

The Respondent filed her original petition which included the names, dates of birth, addresses and a picture of the children. She did not move to seal the petition. It was filed on August 2, 2021, and Judge Magness had to seal it sua sponte the next day. The Respondent’s excuse for not sealing it was that she overlooked it. The day after she filed the petition she went to see Judge Magness who had not yet had time to read it. Soon after they met, Judge Magness said another judge alerted him to the contents of the petition which prompted him to seal it sua sponte. He then had an email sent to the Respondent informing her that he placed the petition under seal. The Respondent was leaving town on a long trip after leaving the courthouse that day and claims she did not see the email that day. She also delivered a copy of the unsealed petition to the children’s principal on her way out of town.

The Respondent’s excuse for failing to seal the petition is not credible. The petition delivered to the principal was approximately 200 pages long. Unlike the later substitute petition, it contained many explicit, graphic and irrelevant sexual anecdotes of her and the father’s sex life. However, like the substitute petition, it also contained many wild conjectures of perceived sexual abuse of the children.

The record supports the findings of the OPC Panel that the petition presented allegations of abuse not supported by the evidence. The petition and substitute petition contained outrageous allegations of abuse by the father. The petition also contained irrelevant graphic sexual content unrelated to any allegations of abuse. This required both father and mother to hire counsel to defend against such allegations and caused considerable embarrassment and stress to the family. We hold, the OPC Panel correctly found that the Respondent violated Rule 3.1, ARPC, as well as the identical Rule 3.1, ORPC and her conduct merits professional discipline in Oklahoma.

Sanction

 we hold, that in this reciprocal disciplinary matter there was sufficient evidence to support the Arkansas OPC discipline and the Respondent’s conduct also violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d), ORPC. We impose a six month suspension of the Respondent’s license to practice law in Oklahoma commencing on September 27, 2024. 

(Mike Frisch)