IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF SCHULTZ
2017 OK 5
| Okla. | 2017Background
- In 2005 Bruce Dean Schultz and Jared Bruce, both adults, obtained an adult adoption decree in Tulsa County.
- In 2015 both parties jointly petitioned the district court to vacate that adult adoption; both consented and were competent adults.
- The trial court found no evidence of bad faith or fraud and believed termination would serve the parties' interests but concluded it lacked statutory authority because 10 O.S. § 7507-1.1 is silent on vacating adult adoptions.
- Appellants appealed directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which accepted the case of first impression.
- The Supreme Court examined the Adoption Code, legislative intent, and surrounding statutory provisions governing termination for minor adoptions to determine whether a district court may vacate an adult adoption when both parties, competent adults, consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court has authority to vacate an adult adoption when both parties are competent adults who consent | Schultz/Bruce: § 7507-1.1’s silence does not prohibit vacatur; where adults consent and are competent, the court should be able to vacate based on best interests | Trial court/State (implicit): Silence in § 7507-1.1 means no statutory authority to vacate adult adoptions, so the court must decline | Court: A district court may vacate an adult adoption if the adoptee and adopter (and spouse if applicable) are competent, consent in writing, and the court determines vacatur is in the parties’ best interests; absence of bad faith or fraud supports vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 108 P.2d 162 (Okla. 1940) (statutory construction: legislative intent from entire act governs interpretation)
- 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 is for abuse of discretion)
- Hoedebeck v. Hoedebeck, 948 P.2d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (trial court’s fact findings entitled to deference because of witness demeanor)
- McSpadden v. Mahoney, 402 P.2d 656 (Okla. 1964) (courts should adopt reasonable statutory constructions to avoid absurd results)