PATRICK v. PATRICK
2016 OK CIV APP 52
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Father and Mother divorced in 2008; they had two children, S.A.P. (b. 1994) and R.A.P. (b. 1998). Joint custody awarded; child support obligations ceased by operation of prior orders when S.A.P. reached majority.
- In 2014, after S.A.P. turned 20 and graduated high school, Father moved under 43 O.S. §112.1A to declare S.A.P. a “special needs” child so parents could be ordered to contribute to post‑majority support and pay for substance‑abuse treatment.
- Evidence: S.A.P. (an adult) was arrested for DUI/possession in 2014, voluntarily entered inpatient detox in Tennessee (≈30 days) and then a 90‑day inpatient/outpatient program in California; Father paid some living expenses and sought contribution from Mother for treatment costs.
- Father argued S.A.P.’s drug/alcohol addiction justified a §112.1A award; Mother disputed that addiction qualified as a qualifying mental/physical disability and objected to the evidentiary basis and timing required by statute.
- Trial court found S.A.P. a “special needs” child under §112.1A and ordered Mother to pay half of Tennessee costs and one‑third of California costs. Mother appealed.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence did not satisfy §112.1A’s requirements (causal incapacity to be self‑supporting and onset/knowledge before age 18).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.A.P.’s substance‑abuse qualifies as a mental/physical disability under §112.1A | Addiction makes S.A.P. a “special needs” adult entitled to continued support | §112.1A targets serious mental/physical disabilities (e.g., retardation); addiction alone is not shown to qualify | Court assumed arguendo addiction could qualify but found evidence insufficient on other elements; did not conclusively adopt addiction as qualifying here |
| Whether there is a causal link between the alleged disability and inability to be self‑supporting | S.A.P. was unable to support himself while in treatment and needed parental financial aid | No evidence S.A.P. was incapable of finding work or self‑support when not confined; temporary treatment confinement does not show permanent incapacity | Court required and found no evidence of causal relationship or ongoing inability to be self‑supporting — reversed trial court |
| Whether the disability (or its cause) existed or was known on or before S.A.P.’s 18th birthday | Father linked adult addiction to Mother’s alleged alcoholism and permissiveness during S.A.P.’s youth | No proof S.A.P. required substantial care/supervision due to substance abuse prior to age 18 | Court held Father failed to prove disability (or its known cause) existed by the 18th birthday as §112.1A requires |
| Whether Mother’s stated willingness to help estops her from contesting liability | Father argued Mother’s emails showing willingness to assist justified contribution order | Willingness to help does not substitute for statutory entitlement or evidentiary showing under §112.1A | Court rejected estoppel argument; statutory elements—not voluntariness—control entitlement to post‑minor support |
Key Cases Cited
- Merritt v. Merritt, 73 P.3d 878 (2003 OK) (trial court child‑support decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Gregory v. Gregory, 259 P.3d 914 (2011 OK CIV APP) (§112.1A authorizes post‑majority support for mentally/physically disabled children)
- Presley v. Presley, 500 A.2d 322 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985) (discussing economic inability to meet reasonable living expenses as basis for disability‑support awards)
- Edgington v. Edgington, 80 P.3d 1282 (Nev. 2003) (statutory disability requires incapacity to be self‑supporting)