IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF SCHULTZ
2017 OK 5
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In June 2005 Tulsa County entered a decree of adoption between two adults: Bruce Dean Schultz (adoptive parent) and Jared Bruce (adoptee). Both were competent adults at the time.
- In July 2015 both parties jointly petitioned the district court to vacate (terminate) that adult-adoption decree, asserting mutual consent and that vacatur served their best interests.
- The trial court found consent, competency, and good faith but concluded it lacked statutory authority to vacate an adult adoption because 10 Ohio St. 2011 § 7507-1.1 is silent as to vacation.
- The trial court encouraged appeal; the Supreme Court of Oklahoma took the case as one of first impression.
- The Supreme Court examined the Adoption Code, legislative intent, and parallels with termination rules for minor adoptions and concluded the trial court erred in refusing to consider vacatur.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a best-interest determination and, absent bad faith or fraud, to grant the vacation where competent adults mutually consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court has authority to vacate an adult adoption when both competent adults jointly petition for vacatur | Schultz/Bruce: §7507-1.1 requires consent, competency, and best-interest review; silence as to vacatur does not prohibit terminating an adult adoption and court should be able to grant vacatur on those grounds | State/Trial court: The Adoption Code is silent about vacating adult adoptions; absent express authorization the court lacks power to vacate once entered | Oklahoma Supreme Court: Trial court erred. Where competent adults mutually consent and no bad faith/fraud exists, the court may vacate an adult adoption after a best-interest determination; remanded for that hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (best-interest of adoptee is paramount in adoption matters)
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (appellate review of parental-rights determinations for abuse of discretion)
- Hoedebeck v. Hoedebeck, 948 P.2d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (trial court’s advantage in observing witnesses and fact-finding)
- Keck v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 108 P.2d 162 (Okla. 1940) (statutory construction guided by legislative intent and entire statute)
- Stewart v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 168 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1946) (definition and limits of judicial discretion)
- McSpadden v. Mahoney, 402 P.2d 656 (Okla. 1964) (avoidance of absurd statutory constructions)
- State ex rel. Rucker v. Tapp, 380 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1963) (judicial interpretation to prevent statutory incongruity)
- Okla. Nat. Gas Co. v. Corp. Comm’n of Okla., 216 P. 917 (Okla. 1923) (courts may modify statutory terms to effect legislative intent)