IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF SCHULTZ
2017 OK 5
Okla.2017Background
- In 2005 Bruce Dean Schultz adopted adult Jared Bruce; both were adults at the time.
- In 2015 both parties jointly petitioned the Tulsa County District Court to vacate that adult adoption.
- The trial court found the parties competent, consenting, and acting in good faith but ruled it lacked statutory authority to vacate an adult adoption because 10 O.S. § 7507-1.1 is silent on vacation.
- The parties appealed directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court on a question of first impression.
- The Supreme Court retained the case and analyzed statutory text, surrounding Adoption Code provisions, and legislative intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court has authority to vacate an adult adoption when both parties (competent adults) jointly seek vacation | Schultz/Bruce: § 7507-1.1 permits court oversight (consent, competency, best interests); silence should not bar vacation where both adults consent and are competent | Trial court: § 7507-1.1 is silent about vacating adult adoptions, so the court lacks authority to vacate the decree | Oklahoma Supreme Court: Reversed. When competent adults jointly consent, a district court may vacate an adult adoption after a best-interest determination (absent bad faith or fraud) |
| Whether this holding affects adoptions of minor children or post-majority attempts to vacate those adoptions | Schultz/Bruce: (implicit) holding limited to adult adoptions only | Trial court/State interest: Adoption of minors is governed by distinct provisions protecting permanence | Court: Holding is limited to adult adoptions; adoptions of minors remain governed by statutes protecting permanence and limited statutory windows for vacation |
Key Cases Cited
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (standard of review for parental-rights determinations; appellate deference to trial court)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (best interests of the adoptee paramount in adoption matters)
- Hoedebeck v. Hoedebeck, 948 P.2d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (deference to trial court’s credibility and factual findings)
- Keck v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 108 P.2d 162 (Okla. 1940) (use of statutory context and legislative intent to construe ambiguous statutes)
- Stewart v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 168 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1946) (definition and limits of judicial discretion)
- State ex rel. Rucker v. Tapp, 380 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1963) (avoidance of statutory constructions that produce incongruous results)
- McSpadden v. Mahoney, 402 P.2d 656 (Okla. 1964) (courts should avoid absurd statutory constructions inconsistent with legislative intent)
- Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corp. Comm’n of Okla., 216 P. 917 (Okla. 1923) (legislative intent governs statutory construction)
- Brown v. State Election Bd., 170 P.2d 200 (Okla. 1946) (principle against adopting statutory constructions that courts deem unintended by Legislature)