ELDREDGE v. TAYLOR
2014 OK 92
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Eldredge and Taylor were partners (civil union in New Zealand); they planned two children using anonymous sperm donor with Taylor as biological mother.
- After each birth (2007, 2008) the parties executed written co-parenting Agreements granting Eldredge parental rights and shared responsibilities; Eldredge publicly acted as a parent and contributed financially.
- The parties separated (2011), dissolved the civil union (2013), and continued shared parenting until Taylor removed the children from Eldredge’s care (Jan. 15, 2014), changed their surnames, and planned to move them out of Oklahoma.
- Eldredge petitioned Oklahoma district court to adopt the Agreements, declare her a legal parent, award joint custody/visitation, restore children’s surnames, set child support, and restrict removal from the country; a temporary emergency custody order issued ex parte then was vacated.
- Taylor moved to dismiss for lack of standing, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and statute-of-limitations; the district court dismissed for lack of standing. Eldredge appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eldredge has standing to seek a best-interest-of-the-child hearing based on the co-parenting Agreements | Eldredge: Agreements created enforceable parental rights or at least entitlement to a best-interest hearing | Taylor: Eldredge is a legal stranger with no cognizable interest absent a showing Taylor is unfit; Agreements violate public policy | Court: Eldredge has standing under the Agreements; dismissal was error; remand for best-interest hearing (Eldredge bears burden to show enforcement serves children’s best interests) |
| Whether the co-parenting Agreements are void as against public policy | Eldredge: Agreements are lawful contracts reflecting parental intent and shared caregiving | Taylor: Agreements conflict with Oklahoma law (ban on same-sex marriage, adoption statutes), thus unenforceable | Court: Agreements do not violate public policy or adoption statutes; Article 2 §35 is unconstitutional post-Bishop; Agreements enforceable unless contrary to children’s best interests |
| Whether Troxel precludes third-party relief absent parental unfitness | Eldredge: Troxel does not bar judicial review where special factors exist (written agreement, parental conduct) | Taylor: Troxel protects parental autonomy; no third-party relief without unfitness | Court: Troxel requires courts to give special weight to fit parental decisions but does not create an absolute bar; the special factors here justify a best-interest hearing |
| Scope of decision — whether to create broad rule for nonparents | Eldredge: Seeks recognition of her parental status/rights under facts | Taylor: Warns against expanding rights to nonparents | Court: Decision limited to these unique facts (written co-parenting agreements, intent and conduct); not precedent for grandparents/step-parents generally |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State ex rel. State Election Bd., 270 P.3d 155 (Okla. 2012) (standard of review for motions to dismiss and standing principles)
- Huber v. Culp, 149 P. 216 (Okla. 1915) (party may seek enforcement even where contract void as against public policy in narrow circumstances)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have constitutional right to make child-rearing decisions; courts must accord special weight to fit parents)
- Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.) (struck down Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban; impacts public-policy analysis)
- Matter of B.C., 749 P.2d 542 (Okla. 1988) (definition and recognition of in loco parentis)