RAMEY v. SUTTON
2015 OK 79
Okla.2015Background
- Ramey and Sutton were long-term same‑sex partners who agreed to have and jointly raise a child; Sutton was the biological mother after artificial insemination by a donor who relinquished parental claims.
- The couple lived together, held themselves out as parents, and Ramey performed extensive parenting duties (primary caregiver, volunteered at school, claimed the child as a dependent on taxes); the child called Ramey “Mom.”
- The relationship ended; Sutton sought to exclude Ramey from custody/visitation and the district court granted dismissal for lack of standing, treating Ramey as a third party.
- Ramey sued seeking recognition as a legal parent and a best‑interest custody/visitation hearing based on in loco parentis and other theories; the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered whether a non‑biological, unmarried same‑sex partner who intentionally co‑parented and was acquiesced in by the biological parent has standing to seek custody/visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑biological partner has standing absent marriage or written co‑parenting agreement | Ramey: long‑term co‑parenting, intentional family planning, and acquiescence give parent‑level interest | Sutton: no marriage/civil union or written agreement, so no legal parental interest | Court: Yes — dismissal reversed; Ramey has standing to seek a best‑interest hearing under in loco parentis |
| Whether biological mother can unilaterally erase an established parental relationship | Ramey: Sutton voluntarily fostered and encouraged Ramey's parental role; she cannot erase that relationship | Sutton: as biological parent she may exclude third parties absent formal legal status | Court: No — biological parent may not erase a relationship she created and fostered; Ramey’s status merits a hearing |
| Applicability of in loco parentis to same‑sex, unmarried co‑parents who co‑parented pre‑marriage equality | Ramey: doctrine applies where partner assumed parental obligations with mutual intent to co‑parent | Sutton: argued doctrine shouldn’t extend without marriage/contract | Court: Doctrine applies here; in loco parentis provides standing for custody/visitation proceedings |
| Effect of prior inability to marry on standing | Ramey: inability to legally marry in Oklahoma before Bishop/Obergefell cannot be used against non‑biological parent | Sutton: couple’s failure to marry or have written agreement forecloses standing | Court: Failure to marry (when marriage was legally unavailable) cannot be used to deny standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldredge v. Taylor, 339 P.3d 888 (Okla. 2014) (enforced written co‑parenting agreement for non‑biological partner)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (marriage is a fundamental right for same‑sex couples; protects family and child‑rearing interests)
- Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) (held Oklahoma’s same‑sex marriage ban unconstitutional)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 75 P.2d 1132 (Okla. 1938) (recognizing in loco parentis doctrine)