*1 494 by the has been terminated bate homestead the homestead. charge
pointed take to land, to nothing but O.S. sale of the remains 30 required under was guardian “ * * * proceeds safely the distribute the insurance keep 16, to 1961 § *** according in- dwelling to their permit to the heirs not property ward. of his terests. is contained Such distribution destruction unnecessary waste *** judgment. court’s maintain property, the real appurte- buildings and same, its assignment As to the of error proper- or other nances, of the income out grant to defendants to court’s refusal ward estate, to and deliver ty of the persuaded by jury, a trial we that are good in as guardianship, his at the close First Bank rule laid in Rose v. Nat’l. down guard- it.” The he received condition as 715, 120, Stigler, 93 Okl. 219 P. record, appears case, under ian upon face that “Where a shows its his trust down fully performed have trust, upon is based a breach of the action recovery dwelling and insuring of the accounting, is for an such action asks proceeds after loss occurred. policy one, equitable a re and the fact that money covery action sought is clear defendant record change character the ac does not insurance proposed to use the (guardian) applicable tion” is here. dwelling on proceeds reconstruct the prevented but that homestead record, weighed We have examined by all subsequent sale land evidence and find no error. ties, widow including defendant Judgment of trial affirmed. through guardian. her previously shown that defend- HALLEY, J., BLACKBIRD, J., V. C. C. only of the guardian guardian not ant JJ., WILLIAMS, and JOHNSON minor children as but of the well. widow concur. deny acted for the He could as Two of as well their mother. IRWIN, JJ., dissent. JACKSON plaintiffs here were at the time minors it is not clear as appointment but at the of the fire. How- status time their
ever, of our conclusion reached in view prime
here, not of concern. such status is conflict reveals considerable research
Our re- jurisdictions with
among the various
under consideration. See
to the issue
gard
DAVIS,
Error,
R.
Thomas
Plaintiff in
A.L.R.,
seq.
p. 336 et
126
v.
rule,
better
our
Virginia
Ralph NEELY and
G.
here,
Defendants
Error.
minds,
under circumstances
39402,
duty
pre
has the
guardian
Nos.
39403.
where
wards,
protect the estate of his
serve and
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
probate homestead
both
tenants
who
July 16, 1963.
well, the sum
as
received
owners
fire insurance should either
proceeds from
Rehearing
Denied Dec.
held
rebuilding or
bene
used
remaindermen, with the home
fit.
being entitled
use of
tenants
stead
during the continuance of the
fund
Crisp County Lum
estate. See
homestead
al.,
Bridges et
Ga.
Co.
ber
Since the
S.E. *2 Norman, T. Luttrell, Robert
Luttrell & Rice, Edmond, plaintiff in error. Watts, Looney, Looney, & Nichols John- *3 son, Otter, Looney, Anna B. Okla- Ned City, homa defendants error. SHIRK, Special Justice. proceeding's Two cases concerning minor children of two natural the consent father without No. Cause pending Court. 39,402, judgment of relates to the Children’s Court which determined consent of their natural father and Cause Adop- 39,403, No. concerns Decree tion. These two cases have consoli- by rea- dated because sons set hereinafter forth. parents minor
The natural two Virginia children are Thomas R. Davis Neely. They were married in G. 1945 Superior were divorced in the Care, County, California, Marin in 1950. custody and control of minors was to the was granted mother and father given the the children under visit reasonable circumstances. Ralph subsequently mother
The
married
peti-
referred to as
hereinafter
tioner, and established her home in Okla-
marriage
homa. Since
date
with their
the two minors
lived
Neely
her husband in the
home
mother and
County.
in Oklahoma
Although at
time
no
since the divorce
natural
contributed
father
children,
support and maintenance of the
an irregular
he has maintained
but not
communication with the chil-
indifferent
by
by
gifts
dren
letters and
as Christmas
birthdays.
In
he came to
on
1954
purpose
visiting
Oklahoma
to do so. In
was
but
unable
corpus proceeding
a habeas
he instituted
County
in the District
Oklahoma
require
Neely
Mrs.
order
Mr.
ap-
him
to see
children. The
to allow
corpus
was
plication for writ
habeas
February
Although
denied
both
entry
entered
minors and the decree of
formal
journal
case,
filed mo-
his remarks
entered. The
father
Judge
heard the
who
tions for
relat-
new trials from the order
at the conclusion
the bench
from the
ing
writ
transcribed
consent issue and also
were
denying
adoption.
this cause.
part
Both of these motions
and are a
the record
were
of habeas
entry
overruled and the natural
journal
writ
denying
perfected
corpus
appeals.
later
sometime
was entered
two
Judge.
successor to
One of the issues
in both
involved
a motion
the natural father filed
appellate
cases is
procedure.
*4
original
the
divorce action
the Su-
natural
father contends
order de
California,
perior
County,
Court Marin
of
adop
eligible
the
for
termining
children
custody rights. An
for modification of the
order,
tion without his consent was a final
1958,
May 8,
order
award-
was entered on
and being a final order
could be
the same
ing custody
month of
to the father for the
appealed;
gave
statutory
that he
notice
the
ap-
July
An
year
each
in 1958.
beginning
appeal
pending
and
the
that
same was
peal
by
from this modification
taken
was
proceeded
when the trial court
hear and
Appeal,
Mrs.
to the
Neely
District Court
petition
adoption;
determine the
and
District,
First
affirmed
the order was
that the trial
jurisdiction
court was without
Davis,
January
on
1960. See Davis v.
proceed
peti
to hear
determine the
75, Cal.Rptr.
Cal.App.2d
1
adoption
appeal
tion for
until
from
the
the
eligible
order
the
appeal
for
determining
While the
from
modification
the
'
adoption
consent,
had
order
without
pending,
petitioner
was
and Mrs.
finally
words,
Neely
15, 1959, in
determined.
filed on October
other
proposes
natural
County,
father
are two
Children’s
of Oklahoma
that there
Court
separate
Oklahoma,
adoption
adoption
phases
and distinct
in an
petition
for
two
where the
consent
children. The natural mother
issue of
gave
proceeding
involved,
e.,
peti-
her
At
i.
the issue of
consent.
the same time the
consent
application
adoption
a
tioner
filed an
whether
decree of
should be
to declare the
decreed;
adoption
minors
are final
and as
eligible for
con-
orders
without
both
such,
ap
required
appealable;
sent
both are
Notice
an
father.
Act,
O.S.1961, peal is
lodged
determining
Uniform
an order
(Title 10
from
Chapter
eligible
a child is
without
A)
given to the natural
for
parent,
the consent
its natural
the court
father.
proceed
does
on
merits
on
Hearing
commenced
adoption phase
appeal
until the
from
April 15,
oral
1960. Considerable
testi-
the order
that consent is not
determining
mony
adduced,
copies
of a num-
necessary,
finally
determined.
ber
letters the
natural
father had writ-
ten
from time
time to his children and
60.8, pro-
Although Title 10 O.S.1961 §
correspondence
other
were offered
evi-
a
court hears
vides
dence. At
the conclusion
without
consent
a
for
matter was taken under advisement
an order must be
determining
ent
entered
and requested
trial court
findings of
necessary,
consent is not
we do not be-
fact and conclusions of law were submitted.
prior
standing
that such order
alone
lieve
completion
adoption proceed-
May 27,
On
Children’s
purview
comes within the
ings,
of Title
findings
entered its
of fact and conclusions
60.19,
provides:
which
10 O.S.1961 §
lawof
and entered its order
declaring
may
eligible
any
minors
from
appeal
“An
taken
without
order,
judgment
consent of the natural
On
final
or decree ren-
father.
the same
Supreme
date there was filed the
consent
dered hereunder
.of
adoption,
thereby,
person
even
the natural
aggrieved
though
had
exceptions
from
his
notice
provided
appeals
given
saved
the manner
appeal
from the order determining
said court in civil matters.”
without
parent executes
Whether
consent.
conclu-
grounded
This is
on
whether
written consent of
an
appeal
sion that an
not lie from
does
adoption without
application is made for
determining
order of the Children’s Court
part and
parent,
the consent of a
both
child
parcel
adoption proceeding.
an
If
parent.
consent
its natural
aof
trial court
that consent
determines
decree of
parent
is not
and a
question
since
first
this is a
entered,
then
impression before this
and the statu-
appeal the
appeal and
have considered
tory provisions are not too
on this
definite
issue con-
concerning
issue
consent and the
per-
issue and the
properly
natural father
adoption.
an or-
cerning the decree
If
appeal
Adop-
fected
the Decree of
eligible for
der
a child is
determining
tion, which would
as to
include the issue
could be
tion without consent of
*5
consent,
only
we can
conclude that
adoption
appealed
proceedings for the
issue as
properly
to consent is
this
before
abeyance until
would have to be held in
Therefore,
for
Court
Cause
determination.
question
was determined
consent
of
39,402,
No.
which relates to the consent
delay
appeal.
this
This would
Court
39,403,
issue is consolidated with Cause No.
adoption proceedings
and
final
Adoption.
which relates to the Decree of
Lewis,
harmony
not be in
with Lewis v.
Okl.,
determining
that
the children were
380 P.2d
wherein we said:
adoption
for
without consent of the
* *
that
it seems reasonable
father,
found,
the trial court
inter
ap-
Legislature
providing
for
alia,
corpus
that the habeas
proceeding in
peals
un-
direct to this court was not
the District
County,
of
Court
Oklahoma
speedy
desirability
mindful of the
of a
Oklahoma, divested the natural
father of
and final determination
of
rights
remaining
custody
all
he had
of
tion
in the
interest of
proceeding
and visitation
children;
and fur-
children involved.”
ther
that
found
Modification of the
application
conclude
where an
We
Divorce Decree entered
the California
for
is made
the consent Court,
corpus
after the habeas
proceeding
parent,
if the trial
of
court determines
Court,
in the
District
Oklahoma
was null
child to
with-
be
beyond
and
and void
of
parent,
out the consent
the order
the California
Court
the absence of
ap-
such determination
making
is not an
presence
domicile or
of the minor children.
person
pealable
aggrieved
order as the
However,
it is not
to consider the
may present
appeal
such issue on
and
if
correctness of the
findings
above
and con-
is
when a
entered and
clusions
law when we
consider the other
proper appeal
perfected
de-
findings and conclusions of law in the trial
adoption.
cree
the trial
order in
court’s
connection with the stat-
determines
a child is not eligible
utory power
authority
and
of the Children’s
adoption without the
consent of a
and our
laws.
ent,
making
the order
such determination
appealable as
aggrieved party
could
parens
Under
doctrine
pat-
proceed
further
riae,
has
power
the inherent
Oklahoma
ceeding.
statutes,
enact
be the same
therefore
otherwise,
hold
good
Children’s
the inherent
of children
did not err in proceeding with
within its
domiciled
borders. We defined
Father”,
Dill,
Without Consent of
con-
Okl.
Natural
in McIntosh
doctrine
tained,
alia,
following:
inter
1,
children, application for for whom tion without his consent. ap- said adoption is and the date made After the rea- plication hearing is set for the Children’s Court issued its or- der determining child son that said consent was not nec- essary, parent, proceeded consent of such tion without the on the parent Adoption. Petition for upon such and shall be served In considering the (10) Adoption, Petition for cases at least ten summons civil the Children’s Court Provided, ruled that the days prior hearing. natural to the father could not ticipate parent if such resides outside proceedings and he contends given by county, such be constitutes notice reversible shall error. days fifteen
registered (IS) mail at least 60.16, Title 10 O.S.1961 prescribes § prior hearing.” the effect aof final upon relationship parent aof and an given In this cause notice was nat- adopted child. Until there is a final decree by registered ural mail the Clerk the relationship n ISth, Children’s October child still exists although may assigned notice as the reason 1959. The right not have the unnecessary consent to was that the nat- of visitation and his consent to procured ural mother had a divorce on the might necessary. not be Although a natural Thereafter, grounds cruelty. extreme parent’s may consent not be necessary and a and after the natural father had entered adoption may decree of be entered without continuance, requested appearance his consent, may still pro contest the petitioner adoption appli- amended the priety present by including ground cation as an additional adoption court evidence be rele the determination made the District primary vant to the court’s inquiry whether County Oklahoma in the habeas promote will the best interests corpus proceedings. The natural father re- *8 of the child. We therefore hold that where sponded application by to the amended adoption court determines that consent Motion to We are not unmindful Dismiss. of a natural not necessary in an point in proceedings to the all of adoption proceeding, such may yet parties solely looking the were to the effect participate adoption proceedings. of the divorce decree of California the corpus Being participate judgment habeas entitled to the in such However, ceedings, challenge he can procedure the Oklahoma the Court. at the adoption opening proceedings, jurisdiction of the the and the and at least two the during hearings, times court as the the trial court well as the the fitness of power petitioners. that its to In instant indicated determine cus- action we have tody already procedure of minors was issue and should determined fol- considered, the Children’s lowed the Children’s Court was correct authority complete would have the to determine and that it had though were with- even the natural father at- tempted appeal out the consent of the natural father “re- from the order deter- gardless of whether not mining or Mr. Davis has the children were
502' tes-, Therefore, Adoption. had doctors Three medical consent.
tioñ without his in unequivocally participate tified. One recommended permitted to the father been only matter and the discussed other two adoption proceedings, to deter- what each believed be the best interests- remaining for the challenge was parents of the minors. Both natural tes- father to and for the mine adopted. Petitioner, Neely.. tified in as did the length should be whether de- making in This Court candor and. inquiry could witness their primary findings demeanor are- whether and the court’s termination against weight best interests not the clear of the evi- promote the dence. children. The judgment of the trial court deter- Therefore, father denying the mining the children eligible for deny participate had the effect right consent of father right to evidence ing the submit father Adoption and the Decree of are affirmed. completed.
why adoption should not be he was denied the when WELCH, DAVISON, JOHNSON proof made offer participate the father IRWIN, JJ, concur. promote the why would not children; adop why the interest of the best JACKSON, J., concurs in result. completed; in what should not be tion given the participate manner he would BLACKBIRD, J., HALLEY, J.„ C. V. C. do right to so. WILLIAMS, J., dissent. Taylor Davis, 260, 199 Okl. 185 P.2d general rule, the ex- we held that as BERRY, having J., certified his dis- court will of evidence in the trial clusion case, in this qualification Honorable- proper appeal reviewed on unless not be SHIRK, City, GEORGE H. Oklahoma was- is made and the excluded evidence offer of Special appointed in his stead. Justice in the record. Title O.S.1961 included stage court, every provides § HALLEY, (dissent- Vice Chief Justice action, disregard any error or must ing). proceedings which does not defect opinion The majority states that the- adverse affect substantial father, found the natural Children’s judgment shall be reversed or party and no thereon, guilty gross neglect and, based error or defect. affected reason him judicially deprived all andt Although entitled to opinion rights. says- Then visitation adoption proceedings, ticipate do,. statutory authority “This had the manner he Would show what failed to ** wrong I believe this two- permitted so participated if to do First, Act reasons. Uniform the trial ruling where court’s can find we provide adopting does not court to- participate right to denying 'him the affect- part adoption pro- have the rights of the father. substantial ed the judicial- ceedings make a determination conclude, *9 it although therefore We custody ly depriving a his. deny court to trial the father error 60.6, 60.7, specifically child. O.S.1961 §§ adoption participate in the judicial provide determination- in instant such denial case proceedings, prior made must have been com- reversible not constitute error. does adoption proceedings. 10- mencement' 60.6, provides have examined detail the evidence that consent to- O.S.1961 § from a upon which the court’s determina- judicially deprived determining to its order has been the- tion “who custody child.” And were'eligible 10 O.S.1961 without the con- of the § 60.7, provides that where a of the natural father' “has- and its sent Decree a court deprived custody judicially been” order in a having juris- n consent is unnecessary. parties is also diction of pro- This under laws n construction Adop- therefor, viding placed Uniform on the there can adop- be no tion proceedings.” tion Conference (emphasis Act the National sup- Laws as plied.) Commissioners on Uniform State found shown Note the Commissioners’ I believe that when our Legislature Annotated, p.9, in Uniform Volume Laws passed this Uniform they Act
30: recognized and understood policy con- theory “It is the act that of this siderations stated in the Commis- above adoption proceedings should be based sioners’ Note. The reasoning is The valid. Only adop- (cid:127)on consent. then can the adoption court should required not be tion court devote attention to its entire judicial make a determination concerning adoptive inquiry home whether the custody of a non-consenting parent. As will interests of the serve best I read our statutes the court is not n childand properly whether the child allowed to make that determination. Such placed adoptive home. judicial determination must have been prior made to the commencing theory “Under this re- controversies proceedings. The court will then parental termination specting the decide whether judicial there has been a de- rights pro- should be settled in other termination custody rights. ceedings jurisdiction in a court with parties adoption pro- before The subject writers on the our new brought. paren- ceedings are Once the adoption statutes apparently my share view. rights tal are terminated the Sater, Adoption Children, See 32 O.B.J. adoption proceedings court in 2376; Adoption, 14 Okl.L.R. 353. respect other function in ex- case, the instant judicial the latest de- cept recognize parental prior termination proceed- rights have been legally terminated ings custody concerning was that made the California divorce court which granted suggested proce- “It has been that a partial Mr. Davis custody. If Mr. and n dureshould be provided in the Neely thought Mrs. there had been a parental rights tion act to terminate change of conditions since the California where the consent cannot be obtained. they determination, could have tried the jurisdictional Aside matter in the District Court of Oklahoma entail, cedural difficulties this County which had continuing subject policy objection. a basic parties over the as a result of the habeas controversy tried in a issues be corpus proceedings begun in 1955. We said n over parental rights, the termination of Berryhill, in Yahola v. 180 Okl. P. e., degree i. unfitness aof 968, (a corpus 2d habeas involving action ent, quite inquiry different than the child) of a : properly court. noted, course, “It will should not be mixed. The two jurisdiction, trial court has continuing paren- trial of controversial issues over change if a sufficient conditions tal should not cast an influence in the future shall occur as to warrant adoption proceedings where the modification of decree, it is with- inquiry sole should the future best be. provide court interests of the child. therefor.” “Consequently, the determination of *10 parental rights expressions is left to be settled are found in Similar Black v. 160, states, 17; May, under the laws 152 Okl. 4 P.2d various Alford v. terminated, Thomas, by P.2d by Okl., until consent or adoption proceeding, in an opinion makes such majority Secondly. The proceed- yet participate in presented weigh evidence no effort to ings.” Despite majority holding, Neely support their by Mrs. to Mr. and by opinion gross finds no error was committed guilty Mr. was claim that Davis denying the trial court Mr. Davis must in neglect this Court of his participate, he The to so because made appeal raised. issue is do on when the view, proof. Taylor Da- offer case is, my finding of the vis, by 260, 444, 199 Okl. 185 P.2d cited evidence. clearly against weight majority opinion authority only is children. neglect The father did not party properly the rule al- who prevented seeing was from ever He pre- participate lowed to in a trial cannot from knowing them. After her divorce objection serve for review to ex- them an Neely took Mrs. Mr. Davis proper' ques- clusion of evidence, Mr. Davis unless from California to Oklahoma. asked, and, thereto, objection tion is corresponded letters with the proper proof offer of rule gifts to made. Such a when came Okla- until 1954 he cannot be stretched to purpose them un- fit the situation visiting homa which the instant case rec- authority discloses. The der the of the divorce ord shows that Davis privi- Mr. advised visitation his reasonable granting hearing him on the merits Neely prevented leges. Mr. and Mrs. tion would be had on held. the date it was the children. seeing from Also the natural corpus proceeding father should not be re- to commenced habeas quired anticipate Neely compel allow him to evidence which Mr. and Mrs. presented Neelys would be by the and then application visit them. denied. an proof concerning make offer of in- gifts letters and sent to them what Thereafter formation he would elicit ob- from their wit- Neely’s reason of Mrs. were refused nesses on cross-examination and atti- what evi- jections his further contact. Her present dence excerpt he would following witnesses tude revealed testimony rebut their testimony witnesses. her on cross-examination: Merely stating requirement such a is suf- “Q. Neely, you would have to Mrs. impracticably ficient show its and in- you not, that failure agree, would feasibility. of the natural father to see chil- At objection; the conclusion on the your fixed dren was due application for order chil- determining the true? isn’t that dren eligible for without consent thought “A. I it was to the writ due following colloquy of the natural corpus. thought he wasn’t of habeas I place took between counsel Mr. Davis supposed to them. see judge: and the trial “Q. Mrs. who it made neces- “THE COURT: The evidence on sary apply for a writ of habeas cor- having both sides concluded, the pus? hereby decision said cause being hurt “A. felt that it would I May taken under advisement until 27th children, certainly I it. and was m.; suggested o’clock a. 10:00 find- “Q. your objec- Then has been ings of fact and conclusions of law to tion, presented stated, it? hasn’t as I have and- the its Court will render decision based yes; and still Oh, “A. is.” upon findings fact and conclusions point, majority to another Going on requested by law as counsel. says: therefore “We hold that opinion time, “MR. LUTTRELL: At adoption court determines that Where Honor, Your decision rendered will a natural is not 'consent of *11 testimony applicable or not the children here te as to whether would be already happy without the I record. would be put Davis; you correct? to Mr. Neely consent of Mr. and Mrs. on if would like for me to so. do all have “THE That is we COURT: before the Court at this time. Honor, “MR. LUTTRELL: Your may record, I
“MR. I didn’t want ask for LUTTRELL: is it now the proposition ruling into a going Respond- to face the of the Court that the right merits ent father has to be on the no further point knowing about heard at that at time ? this it.” “THE COURT: Yes. day May, Thereafter on the 27th sir, well, “MR. Very LUTTRELL: following occurred: exception? we have an “MR. LUTTRELL: If the Court Yes, “THE COURT: show the ex- please, court ahead if the should go ception.” right petition now on the adop- Thereafter some evidence as to parte entirely it would become ex presented tion was court proceeding. neces- place: following took sarily right hold that the father has no * * * part to be heard or to take “THE COURT: It bewill ceeding. specifically had an under- order of de- the court that the final when left standing we this courtroom cree at this time bewill only thing before that we were entered, declaring that said coming May back here for on 27th day named herein shall from for- this question eligibility was the of these Neely ward be known as Paul adoption, children for and the tran- Gaylord lawfully adopted chil- script show, testimony will and if so Neely. you Ralph going dren of Are just the court takes the view that we any regard record in this? make any don’t rights all, have more at that’s “MR. LUTTRELL: As soon as thing; one but if the court thinks we through, court is I would like to be they rights, would be violat- heard. ed proceeding further at this time. right, go “THE COURT: All » n n n ahead. * * * “THE My COURT: feel- “MR. LUTTRELL: I would like if ing this time is that the please, Mr. the court state that part itself is of the whole Rice and I feel should also file that we proceeding disposed and should be a motion for new trial to this last as at this time and that the entire matter order, ready do not be- we have it appealed should be from at the same anticipate step time; cause we not did proceed and I’m going to ” * * * morning. that, taken this being hope and I Supreme help Court will inus the future in de- I am firm belief Law termining type what to indo should be a mantle about a man’s shoul- ” * * * case. protection pre- give ders most “MISS If personal possess: OTTER: cious and can please, ready we are put on testimo- being father his own and hav- ny you desire. We have the Peti- them bear his name. ing The Court should tioners question here on the put position giving itself into the tion; however, as I have lip-service principle great by say- mentioned to such a before, it is feeling our very ing participate he has the *12 proof many intangible and as to the next matter, then
trial of of testi- denying time unknown him elements destroy breath its effectiveness presented mony could and should be the same participate and at upon nature. of this proof an offer require time to make him opinion my judgment majority dis- warning no- given had when he both the facts the law. torts a hear- there even be such tice that an offer I ing, let he should make dissent. alone that court. See Notes Commissioners spir- children, mentally physically, and Act, Adoption page Uniform 31. Vol. itually, integral part of remain Ralph Applicants Nee- the Prior to the enactment “The household of of Neely, Gaylord and (Title ly Virginia Act” Children’s Court O.S.1957 spir- a mental and Supp. physical, would be 861-907) Oklahoma followed §§ to be ordered theory itual detriment to them by forth. en above set allegiance to in actment to divide their time of “The Children’s Court Act” homes, all of the of which specifically granted two in one Legislature them.” power occupants strangers to only are Children’s Court not n authority n hear and determine
Notes
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*] in proceedings but also vested said court “That further reason of the power authority cus to determine record evidence which this Court has tody of jurisdiction children. original consider, con- cerning right custody of of these minor 863, prescribed the Title 20 O.S.1961 § jurisdic- children domiciled within its Court, jurisdiction the Children’s of tion, it is to best interests and wel- action, to-wit: adopting in the instant court of fare minor children that said “ * * * original shall have the court Respondent, natural father Thomas R. proceedings: jurisdiction Davis, any be divested of of cus- tody might or visitation which remain
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*] provisions him under custody per- To “4. determine Court; Divorce California and for living only any child within of son further reason these minor children county. adoption by Applicant, are adoption of a minor.” “5. For the proceedings Ralph in these with- father, consent of the natural out the Order “Determin- Children’s Court herein, Respondent Thomas R. Eligible Davis. ing Children to be in Lew- inter-relationship Acts ORDERED of these two “IT IS THEREFORE supra, nothing in Lewis, see BY THIS and we AND ADJUDGED Adop- children, Delmar circumstance Uniform COURT, Paul adopted recently which Davis, tion Act was Gaylord more Davis and any jurisdiction the Chil- with- of proceedings erodes these father, dren’s Court. consent natural out the Thomas R. Davis.” 60.6, provides: Title 10 O.S.1961 § legitimate adopted “A child be cannot It is to be noted that the Children’s parents, gross- the consent of its only found that the natural ** * living, except that consent said ly but neglected the minor children * * * necessary is not fa- from father specifically divested the deprived judicially who has been any rights custody or visitation ther of custody any court of of the child might which remain to him. competent jurisdiction on account be We fail to distinction see cruelty neglect.” or tween exercise of such 60.7, Title 10 provides: O.S.1961 § where Children’s Court in instances * * * ju- “Where a has been original divorce, albeit one decree of dicially deprived custody entered granted rights, visitation was one ex- cruelty child account or originally by a or entered sister state one cruelty gross duty, neglect treme by an The doctrine Oklahoma Court. failed, wilfully or where has recognized parens patriae long neglected refused or to contribute to the 41; cases, in view A.L.R.2d support child, provided of his by the Chil conferred divorce, period for a of one Act, recognized dren’s (1) year next preceding filing Typical validity equal matters. child, of such page A.L.R.2d cases are collected at 47 procure it shall not be