Washington County Oklahoma DHS Medical Kidnapping Case Raises Due Process Concerns
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA — A Washington County juvenile deprived case is raising serious medical kidnapping concerns after a mother says she did exactly what parents are told to do — seek emergency medical help for her infant — and then lost meaningful access to all three of her children.
According to records reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network, the case began after an infant briefly slipped underwater during a bath. The mother called for emergency help. Medical providers later identified a nondisplaced skull fracture. From there, the case rapidly escalated from medical care to a child abuse investigation, emergency custody, highly restricted visitation, delayed evidence disclosures, and months of separation before adjudication.
The parent is identified here as Parent A.K.-925. The children are identified as Child A, Child B, and Child C. Protective aliases are used due to retaliation concerns.
The public officials named in the complaint include Judge Kyra F. Franks, DHS investigator Justin Callahan, District Attorney William D. Drake, and Assistant District Attorney Zoe Gutlett.
What Makes This a Medical Kidnapping Concern?
Medical kidnapping concerns arise when a parent seeks medical care for a child and the medical system becomes the gateway to CPS removal, court intervention, and prolonged family separation before the facts are fully established.
That pattern is exactly what this case appears to raise.
Parent A.K.-925 did not hide the incident. She did not refuse treatment. She did not wait days to seek care. She contacted the child’s father, called 911, cooperated with emergency responders, and brought the infant into the medical system for evaluation.
Yet after the hospital visit uncovered a skull fracture that doctors could not immediately explain, the medical encounter became the foundation for suspected abuse allegations. DHS then pursued emergency custody of all three children.
This is the danger at the center of medical kidnapping cases: a parent seeks help, medical uncertainty becomes suspicion, suspicion becomes an emergency removal, and the family is separated before the court has fully tested the evidence.
The Bath Incident That Started the Case
According to the parent’s account, Parent A.K.-925 was bathing three very young children at the same time. Two toddlers were in the main bathtub. The infant was in a smaller baby bath nearby.
The older children began fighting. The parent briefly turned to separate them. During that moment, the infant slipped under the water in the baby bath.
The parent reported hearing gurgling, immediately pulling the infant from the water, holding him in a football position, and patting his back to clear water from his airway. The infant spit up water and remained breathing.
The parent then called for help.
That timeline matters. The state’s involvement did not begin because the parent avoided care. It began because the parent sought care.
The First Medical Concern Was Near Drowning — Not Proven Abuse
Initial medical records from Jane Phillips Medical Center listed the encounter diagnosis as near drowning and nonspecific abnormal lung findings.
The chest X-ray described bilateral perihilar airspace opacities. The radiology impression stated that, given the clinical history, mild pulmonary edema was not excluded and listed bronchiolitis versus reactive airway disease as possible differentials.
The emergency physician note described the infant as alert, consolable, with no external signs of trauma, normocephalic and atraumatic head exam, soft and flat anterior fontanelle, and stable oxygen saturation.
In other words, the first medical record did not conclusively establish abuse. It documented a near-drowning presentation and transferred the infant for observation.
Then Imaging Found a Skull Fracture
At Saint Francis Children’s Hospital, further imaging was obtained.
The skeletal survey showed findings suspicious for a left parietal skull fracture. CT imaging confirmed a nondisplaced left parietal skull fracture. The CT also stated that no acute intracranial abnormality was demonstrated.
The records also noted no intracranial hemorrhage, no extra-axial fluid collection, no mass lesion, and no acute infarct. The skeletal survey did not identify rib fractures, pelvic fractures, hand fractures, or foot fractures.
This is where the case required careful, balanced, medically rigorous analysis.
A skull fracture in an infant is serious. It must be investigated. But a serious finding is not the same thing as proof of intentional abuse. The medical record contained concerns, but it also contained limiting facts that should have mattered before all three children were removed and the family was thrown into months of separation.
The Medical Record Was Nuanced — But the System Treated the Family Like the Case Was Already Proven
The CAN evaluation later described the case as suspected child physical abuse. It stated the infant had a left parietal skull fracture with no known trauma discovered during a workup from a near-drowning incident.
The evaluator stated there were no diagnostic cutaneous findings of child physical abuse, but that the lack of skin findings did not negate abuse. The report also stated the fracture remained highly concerning because the history did not explain the injury.
That is a medically cautious conclusion: suspected abuse, concern, unexplained injury.
But the family’s experience appears to have gone far beyond caution. The children were removed. Visitation was restricted to three hours per week. Breastfeeding ended. Birthdays and holidays were missed. The case dragged on while evidence was still being gathered, reviewed, and disclosed.
That is the difference between investigation and punishment.
Parents Were Documented as Attentive — Then Treated Like a Threat
One of the strongest facts in the records is that hospital documentation did not portray the parents as disengaged or neglectful at bedside.
A Saint Francis nursing note stated that the parents remained at bedside, were attentive to the patient’s needs, and appropriately cared for and consoled the infant.
That matters.
The same medical system that documented the parents as present, attentive, and appropriate also became part of the process that helped launch a child abuse investigation and state custody action.
This is why medical kidnapping concerns are so serious. Parents can cooperate, seek emergency care, remain bedside, ask questions, challenge confusing medical findings, and still be treated as suspects whose children should be taken.
DHS Sought Custody Before the Evidence Was Fully Developed
The Bartlesville Police report states DHS investigator Justin Callahan advised that he would speak with a judge to seek state custody of all three children and that he would obtain medical records from Saint Francis and Jane Phillips.
That sequence is alarming.
If DHS was still obtaining the medical records, the obvious question is whether DHS had fully reviewed and independently verified the evidence before seeking custody.
The parent alleges the case continued for months while discovery remained incomplete, medical records were still being reviewed, and evidence was disclosed late.
This is the core due process problem: the State moved fast to remove the children, but slow to produce and test the evidence.
Late Evidence Turned the Process Into Punishment
According to the parent and case summary, key medical evidence was submitted just five days before a scheduled hearing.
The parent says this violated the 10-day rule and prevented adequate preparation.
The hearing was then continued.
That means the family remained separated while the State’s own evidence delays prevented the case from moving forward.
This is how juvenile court can become coercive. Parents are separated from their children before adjudication, then pressured to comply while evidence drips in late. The longer the process lasts, the more damage is done — even if the allegations are never properly proven.
Three Hours a Week With Three Children
Parent A.K.-925 reported being allowed only three hours of supervised visitation per week with all three children.
One child was an infant only a few months old.
The parent reported being forced to stop breastfeeding. She reported losing bonding time. She reported the infant no longer recognizing the parents. She reported missing birthdays, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and other milestones with the older children.
This is not a minor inconvenience. This is family destruction before adjudication.
If the State has not yet proven deprivation, but the parents have already lost breastfeeding, infant bonding, holidays, birthdays, and months of daily contact, the punishment has already happened.
Judge Said Visitation Should Be Expanded — DHS Still Kept It Limited
According to the parent, Judge Kyra F. Franks stated that visitation should be extended to the fullest capacity.
But DHS allegedly continued limiting visitation to the bare minimum: fully supervised visits at locations DHS considered safe, often the DHS office.
The parent says attorneys raised the limited visitation issue on November 17, 2025 and again during hearings or conferences in January, February, and March 2026. The parent says nothing meaningfully changed.
This raises a direct accountability question:
If the judge believed visitation should expand, why was DHS allowed to keep the parents at three hours per week?
The Infant Bonding Harm Is Especially Severe
The infant in this case was only months old.
Infants do not understand court orders, agency policies, continuances, discovery delays, or adjudication schedules. They understand voices, smell, touch, feeding, routine, and attachment.
When the State limits parents to three hours a week with an infant, the State is not simply managing visitation. It is shaping whether that infant bonds with the parents at all.
Parent A.K.-925 reported the infant no longer knows who the parents are.
If accurate, that is not collateral damage. That is direct harm caused by the system.
Family Meetings Every Three Months Did Not Fix the Problem
The parent reported family meetings roughly once every three months, but said DHS would not meaningfully change visitation or the case posture until adjudication.
But adjudication was delayed in part because evidence was late or incomplete.
That created a bureaucratic trap:
- DHS would not expand meaningful access until adjudication.
- Adjudication kept getting delayed.
- Evidence was still being disclosed late.
- The family remained separated the entire time.
This is how families lose months with their children without ever receiving a fair, timely evidentiary ruling.
Judge Kyra F. Franks Named in Complaint
Judge Kyra F. Franks presided over Washington County Case No. JD-2025-30.
The parent alleges Judge Franks acknowledged that visitation should be expanded but did not enforce that expectation when DHS continued limiting parental access.
The parent also expressed concern that Judge Franks has a pattern of adjudicating children deprived even when evidence is not sufficient. That is a serious allegation and should be reviewed through court records, hearing transcripts, and case outcomes before being stated as fact.
What can be stated from this complaint is that Judge Franks was the presiding judge in a case where the family says limited visitation, delayed evidence, and prolonged pre-adjudication separation were allowed to continue.
Justin Callahan Named as DHS Investigator
Justin Callahan, DHS investigator, is named in both the complaint and records.
The police report places Callahan at Saint Francis during the early investigation. It also states he planned to speak with a judge about seeking state custody of all three children and would obtain medical records from Saint Francis and Jane Phillips.
The parent alleges Callahan seemed to make conclusions without the facts.
That concern is not hard to understand. When DHS seeks custody while medical records are still being obtained, families have every reason to ask whether the agency investigated first or removed first.
William D. Drake and Zoe Gutlett Named
William D. Drake, District Attorney, is listed as involved in the handling of the case.
Zoe Gutlett, Assistant District Attorney representing DHS, is also named.
The parent alleges Gutlett submitted delayed evidence and claimed evidence existed or was available when it had not been timely provided.
In medical child welfare cases, prosecutors carry enormous responsibility. If the State uses medical evidence to separate children from parents, that evidence must be disclosed promptly, accurately, and completely.
Late disclosure in a medical case does not merely inconvenience the defense. It can prevent parents from obtaining expert review, understanding imaging, challenging assumptions, and preparing for adjudication.
Investigator McKinley and Evidence Flow Concerns
The complaint also raises concerns about evidence reportedly flowing through law enforcement rather than directly through DHS.
The parent states medical records, body camera footage, CAN materials, and compiled discovery were routed through Investigator McKinley for prosecutorial review.
That raises questions about chain of custody, completeness, authentication, and whether DHS independently verified evidence before relying on it in court.
In an ordinary case, sloppy evidence handling is a problem. In a medical kidnapping case, it can be catastrophic.
The System Treated Uncertainty as Guilt
The most dangerous pattern in this case is not that doctors had concerns. Doctors should report concerns when a child may be unsafe.
The dangerous pattern is what happened next.
Medical uncertainty appears to have been treated as abuse. Suspicion became custody. Custody became separation. Separation became months without adjudication. And while the State’s case was still being assembled, the parents lost bonding time they can never recover.
That is the medical kidnapping pattern.
What Should Have Happened
A fair and child-centered process should have included:
- Immediate emergency medical care, which the parent sought
- Prompt preservation and disclosure of all imaging and records
- Independent medical review before severe abuse assumptions hardened
- Clear distinction between suspected abuse and proven abuse
- Strict compliance with evidence disclosure deadlines
- Expanded visitation unless the court made specific findings that it was unsafe
- Breastfeeding and infant bonding protections where medically possible
- Fast adjudication if the State believed the evidence was strong
- No prolonged separation caused by State discovery delays
- Careful review of anonymous allegations before they influenced custody
Accountability Questions for Washington County
- Why were all three children removed if the medical concern involved one infant?
- What exact evidence justified emergency custody before adjudication?
- Were all medical records reviewed before custody was pursued?
- Why did key medical evidence allegedly arrive only five days before a hearing?
- Why was the March 30 hearing continued after late evidence disclosure?
- Why was visitation limited to three hours a week with an infant?
- Why was breastfeeding not protected through expanded contact?
- If the judge supported expanded visitation, why did DHS not provide it?
- How much weight was given to the anonymous call?
- Did DHS independently verify the medical evidence before filing or supporting deprivation allegations?
Why This Case Matters
This case matters because every parent needs to know what can happen when medical care becomes the doorway to CPS removal.
If a parent seeks emergency help, cooperates with doctors, stays at bedside, and still loses all three children before the evidence is fully reviewed and disclosed, that should alarm the public.
No one is arguing that infant injuries should be ignored. The issue is whether Washington County officials treated suspicion as proof and allowed the family to be separated for months while the State’s evidence remained incomplete, late, or contested.
Medical kidnapping is not a conspiracy theory when families are losing children after seeking medical care. It is a documented pattern: parent seeks help, provider flags concern, CPS intervenes, emergency custody follows, and the family spends months trying to prove what should have been carefully investigated before separation.
Parent A.K.-925 said families in the area may be complying out of fear rather than forcing the State to prove its case. That concern deserves scrutiny.
Because if the only parents who get evidence are the ones who fight all the way to adjudication, the system is not operating on truth. It is operating on pressure.
Sources and Documentation
This article is based on the parent complaint, case summary, Bartlesville Police Department report, Saint Francis medical records, Jane Phillips continuity-of-care records, Child Abuse and Neglect evaluation materials, and related records reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network.
Disclaimer
Exposure consent has not been obtained. Before using this article in any public campaign, written consent should be obtained from the parent. This report uses the protective alias Parent A.K.-925 and refers to the children as Child A, Child B, and Child C to protect non-public individuals while the case remains active.
Officials and agencies named or referenced in this report are invited to respond by contacting press@fathersadvocacynetwork.com. This article will be updated with any official statements provided.
This reporting is based on documents, case summaries, allegations, and materials reviewed by Father’s Advocacy Network. Details may evolve as additional records become available.
Father’s Advocacy Network is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. This article is for educational, informational, and public accountability purposes only.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
