564 P.3d 75
Okla.2025Background
- Jared and Brandi Boehm petitioned to allow Brandi (Stepmother) to adopt three minor children without the consent of Brittney Ramirez (Mother), claiming Mother failed to pay child support for twelve of the last fourteen months in accordance with a court order.
- The trial court found for the Boehms, determining Mother failed to comply with her child support obligations; the trial judge refused to consider federal stimulus payments Father received and later credited to Mother’s child support debt.
- Mother appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, specifically endorsing the exclusion of stimulus monies.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether stimulus funds attributable to Mother's tax identity should be credited toward her court-ordered child support.
- Evidence showed Father credited $600 and, later, $1,400 in federal stimulus funds to Mother’s obligation, which would have placed her in substantial compliance if appropriately credited during the relevant period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should economic stimulus payments received by Father and credited to Mother’s child support debt be considered in assessing compliance? | Ramirez: Yes, as they represent Mother’s funds credited to her obligation. | Boehm: No, such payments are not child support and should not count. | Yes, they must be considered—exclusion was an abuse of discretion. |
| Was there clear and convincing evidence that Mother willfully failed to substantially comply with child support for 12 consecutive months? | Ramirez: No, she was substantially compliant when stimulus payments and her direct payments are accounted for. | Boehm: Yes, payments were inconsistent and insufficient. | No, evidence did not support finding of willful non-compliance. |
| Should the adoption proceed without Mother’s consent under 10 O.S.2021, § 7505-4.2(B)? | Ramirez: Requirements for waiver of consent not met. | Boehm: Statutory grounds satisfied due to Mother’s nonpayment. | No, statutory grounds were not met; consent required. |
| Was the trial court’s exclusion of the stimulus payments legal error? | Ramirez: Yes, exclusion ignored material financial facts. | Boehm: No, trial court acted within discretion. | Yes, exclusion was legal error and an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Adoption of M.A.S., 419 P.3d 204 (Okla. 2018) (articulates strict construction favoring biological parents and clarifies evidentiary burden in adoption without consent)
- Merritt v. Merritt, 73 P.3d 878 (Okla. 2003) (SSDI payments made to a child must be credited against a parent’s child support obligation)
- In re Adoption of C.D.M., 39 P.3d 802 (Okla. 2001) (best interest of child standard in adoption proceedings)
- Murrell v. Cox, 226 P.3d 692 (Okla. 2009) (reiterates best interests standard in adoption cases)