2026 OK CIV APP 24
Okla. Civ. App.2026Background
- Guardians sought to adopt two minor children without parental consent based on alleged abandonment, failure to support, and failure to maintain a substantial and positive relationship. 1
- The children had been under a temporary guardianship since 2022, and the parents later moved to California for residential drug treatment while employed by the treatment facility. 2
- There was no court-ordered child support or visitation in the guardianship, and Guardians refused the parents' initial offer of financial support. 3
- Parents continued in-person and telephone contact with the children until Guardians ended contact in June 2024, and Parents then filed to terminate the temporary guardianship. 4
- After a hearing, the trial court found Guardians failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any statutory ground made parental consent unnecessary and denied the adoption application. 5
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, reviewing the denial of adoption without consent for abuse of discretion and legal issues de novo. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parents abandoned the children 7 | Guardians said Parents intended to relinquish parental duties. | Parents pointed to ongoing contact, gifts, and a termination petition. | No abandonment was shown by clear and convincing evidence. 8 |
| Whether Parents failed to maintain a substantial and positive relationship 9 | Guardians said visitation was sporadic and not positive. | Parents had visits, calls, gifts, and then filed legal action after contact was cut off. | Parents had sufficient contact and sufficient legal action. 10 |
| Whether Parents willfully failed to support the children 11 | Guardians said Parents had savings and still provided no support. | Parents offered support, Guardians refused it, and Parents were saving for the children. | No willful failure to support was proven. 12 |
| Whether the trial court misapplied the clear-and-convincing standard 13 | Guardians said the court ignored undisputed evidence and weighed it wrongly. | Parents said credibility conflicts supported the court's findings. | The trial court applied the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Baby Boy K.B., 264 P.3d 1258 (Okla. 2011) (denial of adoption without consent reviewed for abuse of discretion 15)
- In re the Matter of Adoption of C.D.M., 39 P.3d 802 (Okla. 2001) (trial court gets deference on witness credibility and factual issues 16)
- White v. Adoption of Baby Boy D., 10 P.3d 212 (Okla. 2000) (legal issues in adoption cases are reviewed de novo 17)
- Matter of Adoption of M.A.S., 419 P.3d 204 (Okla. 2018) (parental consent is presumed and sufficient legal action can defeat a no-contact argument 18)
- In re Adoption of C.M.G., 656 P.2d 262 (Okla. 1982) (adoption statutes derogating parental rights are strictly construed in favor of the parent 19)
- Neer v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 982 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1999) (undefined statutory terms are given their ordinary meaning 20)
- In re Adoption of O.L.P., 41 P.3d 999 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (abandonment in consentless adoption includes subjective intent shown by objective conduct 21)
- In re Adoption of J.N.K., 15 P.3d 521 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) (limited contact, including cards or letters, may suffice for a substantial and positive relationship 22)
- Matter of Adoption of G.D.L., 747 P.2d 282 (Okla. 1987) (adoption statutes are strictly construed 23)
- Wylie v. Chesser, 173 P.3d 64 (Okla. 2007) (plain statutory language controls when unambiguous 24)
- Matter of Adoption of L.B.L., 529 P.3d 175 (Okla. 2023) (sufficient legal action is determined case by case and filing suit does not automatically preserve the relationship defense 25)
- In re Adoption of G.D.J., 261 P.3d 1159 (Okla. 2011) (participation in other custody litigation may be insufficient legal action 26)
- Matter of Adoption of N.J.B., 564 P.3d 75 (Okla. 2025) (adoption without consent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence 27)
- Steltzlen v. Fritz, 134 P.3d 141 (Okla. 2006) (credibility and weight of conflicting testimony are for the trier of fact 28)
- Matter of Adoption of J.L.H., 737 P.2d 915 (Okla. 1987) (a parent not voluntarily disabling self to avoid support is not in the class whose consent may be extinguished 29)