ELDREDGE v. TAYLOR
2014 OK 92
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Julie Eldredge and Defendant Karen Taylor were civil-union partners who planned conception using an anonymous sperm donor; Taylor is the biological mother of two children born in Oklahoma in 2007 and 2008.
- After each birth the parties executed written co-parenting agreements designating both as parents and sharing parental rights and responsibilities; Eldredge performed day-to-day parenting, paid child support, and was publicly held out as a parent.
- The parties separated (2011), dissolved their New Zealand civil union (2013), and continued shared parenting until Taylor removed the children from Eldredge's care in January 2014, changed their surnames, and planned to remove them from Oklahoma.
- Eldredge filed in Canadian County district court seeking adoption of the agreements as court orders, a declaration of legal parentage, joint custody under a shared parenting plan, restoration of the children’s surname, child support, temporary custody, and to prevent removal from the country; a temporary ex parte custody order issued then was later revoked.
- Taylor moved to dismiss for lack of standing, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and statute-of-limitations; the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and Eldredge appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court limited its review to whether Eldredge had standing to seek a best-interest-of-the-child hearing and reversed, remanding for such a hearing (burden on Eldredge to show agreements serve children’s best interests).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek best-interest hearing based on enforceable co-parenting agreements | Eldredge: the written Agreements create parental rights and give standing to seek enforcement and a best-interest hearing | Taylor: Eldredge is a legal stranger; agreements violate public policy and are unenforceable; absent parental unfitness a third party lacks standing | Court: Eldredge has standing under the Agreements; agreements are not contrary to Oklahoma public policy as argued and remand for best-interest hearing (Eldredge bears burden) |
| Whether co-parenting agreements violate public policy (e.g., same-sex marriage ban, Adoption Code) | Eldredge: agreements legal and enforceable; reflect parties’ intent to share parentage | Taylor: agreements conflict with constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and Adoption Code limits; thus unenforceable | Court: ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional per Tenth Circuit; Adoption Code does not prohibit same-sex persons adopting; Taylor failed to show any public policy rendering agreements unenforceable; only potential infirmity is if enforcement would conflict with children’s best interests |
| Applicability of Troxel parental-autonomy protections to bar third-party relief absent parental unfitness | Eldredge: special facts (written agreements, long-term parenting role, public holding-out) justify state review | Taylor: Troxel protects a fit parent’s decisions; absent unfitness no third party may obtain custody/visitation | Court: Troxel requires "special weight" to parent's decision, but does not make it unrebuttable; the special factors here permit interference and a best-interest hearing (with special weight accorded to Taylor) |
| Whether redress is available (i.e., relief through best-interest-of-child proceedings) | Eldredge: relief is available through best-interest adjudication and enforcement of agreements | Taylor: relief inappropriate because of lack of legal status and alleged illegality of agreements | Court: redress is possible; remanded for best-interest hearing to determine enforceability and appropriate relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of B.C., 749 P.2d 542 (Okla. 1988) (defines in loco parentis as assuming parental status without formal adoption)
- Huber v. Culp, 149 P. 216 (Okla. 1915) (contract enforcement even where public-policy arguments exist should be approached cautiously)
- Horn v. Gibson, 103 P. 563 (Okla. 1909) (party seeking to void contract bears burden to prove public-policy violation)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have constitutional liberty interest in childrearing; courts must give special weight to a fit parent's decisions)
- Fent v. Contingency Review Bd., 163 P.3d 512 (Okla. 2007) (standing requires a legally protected interest injured in fact, causal nexus, and redressability)
- Estate of Doan v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 727 P.2d 574 (Okla. 1986) (standing requires direct, immediate, and substantial interest)