BIRTCIEL v. JONES
2016 OK 103
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Mary Birtciel (grandmother) filed for grandparent visitation in Oklahoma County in Feb 2014 after the child’s mother died; Father (Chad Jones) opposed and a trial was set.
- While that petition was pending, Father’s wife (stepmother) petitioned to adopt the child in Canadian County (June 2014).
- Grandmother received courtesy notice of the adoption hearing (though she had no statutory right to notice or consent) and did not appear.
- Canadian County granted the adoption in August 2014. Father then argued the adoption created an intact nuclear family and barred grandparent visitation under 43 O.S. §109.4.
- The Oklahoma County trial court (sua sponte) ruled that grandmother’s nonappearance at the adoption deprived her of the right to seek visitation; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appear at adoption hearing | Birtciel had no statutory standing or obligation to appear at the adoption; she only had standing for her pending visitation action | Father argued grandmother’s failure to appear at adoption justified denying visitation | Court: Grandmother lacked standing at the adoption; lack of statutory notice/consent means nonappearance cannot waive her separate visitation claim |
| Effect of subsequent adoption on pending visitation petition | Grandmother’s right to seek visitation vested at the disruption (mother’s death) and a later adoption does not defeat a previously filed, pending petition | Father argued adoption created an intact nuclear family and barred grandparent visitation under §109.4(D)/(B) | Court: Adoption granted after filing a pending petition should not extinguish the pending right; the pending petition must be heard on its merits |
| Proper procedure / timing between adoption and visitation actions | Visitation petition filed first; adoption petitioner must disclose pending proceedings; visitation should be heard before adoption decision that affects rights | Father proceeded with adoption before visitation resolved and relied on adoption outcome | Court: Adoption code requires disclosure of pending proceedings; resolving adoption without considering pending visitation improperly prejudiced grandmother |
| Due process (sua sponte ruling at visitation hearing) | Ruling against grandmother based on a new argument and nonappearance at a different court’s adoption hearing denied due process | Father relied on statutory prohibition against grandparent visitation once adoption created intact family | Court: Trial court’s sua sponte disposition deprived grandmother of process; reversal and remand for hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (best interest of the child governs custody/visitation matters)
- Craig v. Craig, 253 P.3d 57 (Okla. 2011) (grandparent visitation rights are statutory; standing defined by statute)
- Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (Okla. 2009) (standard of review for grandparental visitation; statutory factors control)
- Scott v. Scott, 19 P.3d 273 (Okla. 2001) (adoption cannot terminate preexisting court-granted grandparental rights without hearing)
- In re Adoption of I.D.G., 42 P.3d 303 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (parties cannot confer statutory standing by litigation conduct)
- In re Herbst, 971 P.2d 395 (Okla. 1998) (statutory limits on when grandparent visitation may override parental decision)
- Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (appellate standard of review for discretionary family-court determinations)