Oklahoma Children's Code: Daycare Worker Protections

You work at a daycare center. You watch a coworker grab a toddler by the arm, shove a child into a chair, or leave an infant crying in a crib for hours. You know what you saw is wrong. You report it — to a supervisor, to the Department of Human Services, or both. Two weeks later, your hours are cut. A month later, you're let go. Your employer says it's about "fit." You know it's about what you reported.

Can they do this? Under Oklahoma's Children's Code, the answer is no — but only if the situation falls within the statute's specific protections. A recent federal court ruling out of the Northern District of Oklahoma illustrates exactly where those protections apply and where they stop. If you work in a daycare, child care facility, or similar setting, understanding these boundaries could be the difference between having a legal claim and having nothing.

The Oklahoma Children's Code and Its Purpose

Oklahoma's Children's Code is codified at 10A O.S. §§ 1-1-102 through 1-9-122. Its stated purpose is to "provide the foundation and process for state intervention into the parent-child relationship whenever the circumstances of a family threaten the safety of a child." The Code creates the infrastructure for child abuse reporting, investigation by the Department of Human Services, emergency custody proceedings, and ultimately the termination of parental rights when necessary.

At its core, the Children's Code focuses on protecting children from harm caused by the people who are supposed to be responsible for them — parents, guardians, foster parents, and the staff of facilities entrusted with their care. This focus matters because it determines both who must report abuse and what kind of abuse triggers the statute's protections.

Who Must Report: Oklahoma's Mandatory Reporting Obligation

The Children's Code establishes a broad mandatory reporting obligation. Under 10A O.S. § 1-2-101(B)(1), every person who has reason to believe that a child under 18 is a victim of abuse or neglect must report the matter to the Department of Human Services. School employees face an even more specific mandate: they must report immediately to both DHS and local law enforcement.

DHS maintains a statewide centralized hotline for receiving these reports. The reporting obligation is not optional — it is a legal duty. Failure to report suspected child abuse can itself carry legal consequences.

But the critical question is not just whether you must report. It is whether you are protected when you do.

The Anti-Retaliation Provision

The provision that matters most for daycare workers and child care employees is 10A O.S. § 1-2-101(B)(5), which states:

No employer, supervisor, administrator, governing body or entity shall interfere with the reporting obligations of any employee or other person or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against the employee or other person who in good faith reports suspected child abuse.

This language is broad in one important respect: it protects any employee or person who makes a good-faith report. Your employer cannot fire you, demote you, cut your hours, harass you, or otherwise punish you for reporting suspected child abuse to DHS. The protection extends to interference with reporting itself — meaning your employer cannot order you to stay silent or stop you from making the report in the first place.

However, this protection is only as broad as the underlying statute it is tied to. And that is where the definitions become critical.

What Counts as "Abuse" Under the Children's Code

The Children's Code defines "abuse" at 10A O.S. § 1-1-105(2) as "harm or threatened harm to the health, safety, or welfare of a child by a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare." This is not a general definition of child abuse. It is a specific, limited definition that hinges entirely on who committed the harmful act.

Not every adult who harms a child is a "person responsible" under the Code. The statute defines that term at 10A O.S. § 1-1-105(53) to include:

• A parent
• A legal guardian or custodian
• A foster parent
• A person 18 or older cohabitating with the child's parent, or any other adult residing in the child's home
• An agent or employee of a public or private residential home, institution, facility, or day treatment program (as defined in 10 O.S. § 175.20)
• An owner, operator, or employee of a child care facility (as defined in 10 O.S. § 402)

That last category is the key one for daycare workers. A "child care facility" under Oklahoma law includes child care centers, family child care homes, large family child care homes, part-day programs, out-of-school time programs, day camps, drop-in programs, programs for sick children, and child-placing agencies. These facilities are licensed and regulated by DHS under 10 O.S. § 405(A).

If you work in one of these settings, and a coworker or supervisor who also works in that setting harms a child, the Children's Code applies. The alleged abuser is a "person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare," the conduct constitutes "abuse" under the statute, and your good-faith report of that abuse is protected by the anti-retaliation provision.

Where the Protection Ends: Brackett v. Collinsville Public Schools

A February 2026 ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma illustrates exactly where the Children's Code's protections run out. In Brackett v. Collinsville Public Schools, Case No. 25-cv-00267-SH (N.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2026), a paraprofessional at a public school's early childhood center reported that a teacher was physically abusing students — grabbing children, handling them roughly, and allowing a gate to strike a child's head. The paraprofessional, Sara Brackett, made repeated internal reports to the principal and other administrators over several months. She alleged that the school district retaliated against her by searching her phone, deleting evidence she had gathered, and ultimately not renewing her employment.

Brackett sued under the Children's Code's anti-retaliation provision. The court dismissed her claim for two independent reasons.

First, the alleged abuser was not a "person responsible" under the Code. The teacher, Jennifer Rigdon, was a public school employee — not a parent, guardian, foster parent, or employee of a child care facility or residential care program as defined by the statute. The court emphasized that the Children's Code's list of covered persons is specific and does not simply include anyone who interacts with children. Public school teachers are not listed, and the court declined to expand the statute by analogy.

Brackett tried to argue that school employees stand in loco parentis and should therefore be treated as "persons responsible" under the Code. The court rejected this argument, noting that expanding the definition would extend the Children's Code "far beyond its intended confines." The Code doesn't stop at the reporting requirement — it governs DHS investigations, emergency custody, and parental rights termination. When DHS receives a report and determines the alleged perpetrator is not a "person responsible," it refers the matter to law enforcement rather than conducting its own investigation.

Second, the timing was wrong. Even if Brackett had reported covered "abuse," the alleged retaliation occurred before she made any report to DHS — she had only reported internally to school administrators. The anti-retaliation provision protects reports of suspected child abuse, but Brackett had not yet engaged in the protected reporting activity when the adverse actions began.

What Brackett Means for Daycare Workers

The Brackett decision actually reinforces the strength of the Children's Code's protections for daycare and child care facility employees. The court did not weaken the anti-retaliation provision — it clarified that the provision applies where the statutory definitions are satisfied. And those definitions expressly include employees of child care facilities.

If you work at a licensed daycare center and report a coworker for abusing a child in your care, you are in a materially different position than the plaintiff in Brackett. The coworker is an employee of a "child care facility" as defined in 10 O.S. § 402, which makes them a "person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare" under 10A O.S. § 1-1-105(53). The conduct constitutes "abuse" under the Children's Code. Your report is protected. Retaliation against you violates 10A O.S. § 1-2-101(B)(5).

The Brackett court was careful to note the distinction between Children's Code abuse and criminal child abuse under 21 O.S. § 843.5. Oklahoma's criminal statute defines child abuse more broadly — it covers both abuse by a "person responsible" and the willful or malicious injuring of a child by any person. But the criminal statute's broader definition does not expand the Children's Code's reporting framework or its anti-retaliation protections. These are two separate statutory schemes serving different purposes.

The Burk Tort: A Safety Net Beyond the Children's Code

Even when the Children's Code does not apply — as the Brackett court found for public school employees — Oklahoma law may still provide protection through the Burk v. K-Mart public policy tort. Under Burk, an employee who is terminated in violation of a clear mandate of Oklahoma public policy may have a wrongful discharge claim. Mandatory reporting of child abuse is a clear public policy goal, which is why Burk seems like a natural fit for employees who are fired for doing exactly what the law requires.

But Brackett illustrates the complexity. The court dismissed the Burk claim for two reasons. First, because Brackett failed to show that the Children's Code's public policy goals were implicated — there was no "abuse" as the Code defines it, since the teacher was not a "person responsible." Second, even if the Code applied, the court noted that the Code already provides its own statutory remedy through § 1-2-101(B)(5), which would defeat the fifth element of the Burk test — the requirement that no adequate statutory remedy exists.

This creates an important dynamic for different categories of employees. For daycare and child care workers covered by the Code, the anti-retaliation provision itself is your primary remedy — and it is a strong one. The Burk tort may not be available as a backup precisely because the Code's own remedy is adequate. For employees outside the Code's coverage — such as public school employees reporting conduct by a non-covered person — the Burk tort remains a potential path, but the employee must identify a proper public policy source and show that the reporting activity falls within it. Our article on Oklahoma whistleblower protections explains the Burk tort framework in detail.

Practical Steps for Daycare and Child Care Workers

If you witness child abuse or neglect in your workplace, here is what you should do to protect both the children and yourself:

Report to DHS immediately. Call the statewide child abuse hotline. Do not wait for your employer to handle the matter internally. Your anti-retaliation protection under the Children's Code is triggered by reporting suspected abuse — and the Brackett decision illustrates that internal complaints alone may not qualify as protected reporting activity.

Document everything. Keep contemporaneous notes of what you witnessed — dates, times, specific conduct, and the names of any witnesses. Store this documentation outside of your employer's systems. In Brackett, the school district allegedly searched the plaintiff's phone and deleted evidence. Do not assume your personal devices at work are safe from employer access.

Report in good faith. The anti-retaliation provision protects good-faith reports. You do not need to be certain that abuse occurred — a reasonable belief is sufficient. But knowingly false reports are not protected and may expose you to liability.

Know your employer's status. The Children's Code's protections are strongest when you work in a licensed child care facility, residential care program, or day treatment program. If you are unsure whether your employer qualifies, check whether the facility is licensed by DHS.

Consult an attorney early. If you experience any adverse action after reporting — reduced hours, reassignment, discipline, termination — consult an employment lawyer promptly. The distinction between protected and unprotected reporting activity can be legally complex, and the Brackett decision demonstrates that courts scrutinize the statutory definitions closely.

The Broader Framework: Retaliation Claims Beyond the Children's Code

Employees who face workplace retaliation for reporting misconduct may have claims beyond the Children's Code. Federal law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, may provide a cause of action where a government employer retaliates for constitutionally protected speech. The Brackett court allowed the plaintiff's § 1983 claims against the individual defendants to proceed even after dismissing the Children's Code claim — illustrating that a single set of facts can support multiple legal theories.

Oklahoma's Constitution also provides protections. Brackett's claim under Article 2, Section 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution (prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures) survived the motion to dismiss. Employees in Oklahoma should understand that even when one statutory claim fails, other avenues may remain available.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Oklahoma Children's Code protect daycare workers who report child abuse?

Yes. If you work at a child care facility as defined in 10 O.S. § 402 — which includes daycare centers, family child care homes, and similar programs — and you report suspected abuse in good faith, your employer cannot retaliate against you under 10A O.S. § 1-2-101(B)(5).

Who counts as a "person responsible for a child's health, safety, or welfare"?

The statute defines this term to include parents, legal guardians, foster parents, adults residing in the child's home, and employees of residential care facilities, day treatment programs, and child care facilities licensed by DHS. Public school teachers are not included unless they also fall into one of the listed categories.

What happened in the Brackett v. Collinsville Public Schools case?

A school paraprofessional reported a teacher's physical abuse of students and alleged that the school district retaliated against her. The court dismissed her Children's Code claim because the teacher was not a "person responsible" under the statute and the alleged retaliation occurred before the plaintiff reported to DHS. However, her constitutional claims against the individual defendants survived.

Is there a difference between "abuse" under the Children's Code and criminal child abuse?

Yes. The Children's Code defines abuse narrowly — harm by a "person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare." Criminal child abuse under 21 O.S. § 843.5 is broader and covers willful injury of a child by any person. The broader criminal definition does not expand the Children's Code's reporting framework or its anti-retaliation protections.

Should I report internally first or go straight to DHS?

Report to DHS. Internal reporting may be appropriate as well, but the Children's Code's anti-retaliation protection is tied to reporting suspected child abuse — and the Brackett court's analysis suggests that purely internal complaints to supervisors may not constitute protected reporting activity under the statute.

Can I be fired for reporting child abuse even if I turn out to be wrong?

Not if your report was made in good faith. The anti-retaliation provision protects employees who have a reasonable belief that abuse occurred. You do not need to prove the abuse happened — only that you had a genuine, reasonable basis for suspecting it.

What should I do if my employer retaliates after I report child abuse?

Document the retaliation, preserve all evidence (including communications about your report), and contact an attorney as soon as possible. You may have claims under the Children's Code's anti-retaliation provision, federal civil rights law, the Oklahoma Constitution, or the Burk public policy tort depending on your circumstances. Timing matters — some claims have short filing deadlines.

---

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.