BIRTCIEL v. JONES
382 P.3d 1041
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Grandmother Mary Birtciel filed for grandparent visitation in Oklahoma County in Feb 2014 after the child’s mother died; the petition was pending when later events occurred.
- Father Chad Jones and his wife (Stepmother) filed for and obtained adoption of the child in Canadian County in Aug 2014; Grandmother received courtesy notice but had no statutory right to notice or to consent.
- Father moved to dismiss Grandmother’s visitation petition, arguing the adoption created an intact nuclear family and that adoption bars new grandparent visitation rights.
- The Oklahoma County trial court sua sponte ruled Grandmother’s nonappearance at the adoption proceeding divested her of the right to seek visitation; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for the trial court to adjudicate the pending visitation petition on the statutory factors in 43 O.S. §109.4(E).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Birtciel) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing at adoption hearing | Had no standing/consent right at adoption and thus could not be required to appear | Grandmother received notice and could have reasserted visitation; nonappearance should bar claim | Grandmother lacked statutory standing at adoption; courtesy notice did not confer or enlarge standing |
| Effect of subsequent adoption on pending visitation petition | Petition vested at mother’s death; a later adoption should not preclude a previously filed, pending petition | Adoption created an intact nuclear family and statutory provisions bar grandparent visitation when both parents object | Adoption does not extinguish a pending visitation petition filed before the adoption; court must hear visitation claim on its merits |
| Statutory interpretation of adoption and visitation provisions | Adoption Code contemplates disclosure of pending proceedings; adoption shouldn’t reward a race to courthouse | Adoption statute prohibits granting new visitation after adoption | Adoption statute bars new visitation after adoption but does not terminate or preclude resolution of previously filed pending petitions |
| Due process of resolving new issue sua sponte | Ruling on adoption’s effect at trial denied procedural due process and deprived statutory right to seek visitation | Court’s ruling was procedural and justified by family integrity policy | Sua sponte dismissal based on nonappearance at adoption deprived Grandmother of the opportunity to have her pending petition adjudicated; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (best interest of child is paramount in custody/visitation matters)
- Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (Okla. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for grandparental visitation review)
- Craig v. Craig, 253 P.3d 57 (Okla. 2011) (grandparent visitation rights are statutory and parents generally control custody absent statutory grounds)
- In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla. 1998) (statutory limits on when grandparents may obtain visitation over parental objection)
- Scott v. Scott, 19 P.3d 273 (Okla. 2001) (post-adoption termination of pre-existing visitation requires opportunity to be heard)
- In re Adoption of I.D.G., 42 P.3d 303 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (standing is statutorily conferred and cannot be created by adverse parties)