*1 249 ¶ judgment Accordingly, the trial court P.2d Denver, Colo. County of 95,271 AFFIRMED (1951). Supreme Court in No. appealed Case As the Colorado sel- citizens are in judgment appealed recognized: “[disinterested the trial court conduct investigation of the diligent dom 95,741is REVERSED. No. Case only upon it is and often public officials directly involved disagreement ¶ HARGRAVE, C.J., HODGES, that the facts desires to selfish BOUDREAU, KAUGER, SUMMERS brought are improper contracts illegal or JJ., concur. Yes, the Fetch, 999. 227 P.2d at light.” ¶ OPALA, J., through I parts in concurs contract(s) transaction(s) un- attacked III; part in in concurs result IV. by the sought to be constrained were lawful in than is no different plaintiffs, but WINCHESTER, ¶ WATT, V.C.J. all, Fur- qui if tam suits. majority, vast J., dissent. monetary gain part was ther, is also not qui WATT, V.C.J., tam suit whom motivation with purpose. improper of some indicator WINCHESTER, dissenting: valid joins, J. provides for a reward itself Section public fisc vindicates the taxpayer that OPINION DISSENTING lawsuit. qui tam through the means of majority opinion. I 1 I dissent to objectively unrea- it was not 32 In that having de trial court for reverse the would qui tam suit and have filed the sonable to under 12 O.S. impose sanctions clined mo- response to defendants’ have mounted trial court’s hav § 2011. I would affirm the preclusion, and on to dismiss based tions inher attorneys’ fees under its ing awarded a con- record does not because bad faith has been power to do so where ent overriding for a need was some clusion there dissenting here My reasons for established. sanction, attorney fee monetary dissenting length my are set out at some using his in- judge his discretion abused III, City ex rel. Tal v. in Tal State opinion As plaintiffs as he did. power against herent 268. 19 P.3d City, 2000 OK authority applied law that a matter of inconsistently City Nation- broadly, too Owens, supra v. Bank & Trust Co. al judge’s use of his trial
progeny, and the
evi-
authority, in
circumstances
inherent
torney fees. concerning appeal the reasonable- attorney in said fee them of our reversal In view Appeal Case appealed plaintiffs in fees awarded. judgment the amount of ness of 95,741 no issue raised we need decide No. *2 Tytanic
with Brenda from 1969 until 15, parties January were on divorced Appellee, Phillip Tytanic was born on Febru- ary Tytanic 1974. Brenda obtained a Phillip Tytanic, birth certificate for Tytanic that Phillip Ty- stated Michael tanic’s father.
¶2 15, 1976, April sought On decedent modification of the terms of the divorce de- modify cree. In his motion to decedent al- leged, in a pleading, verified that Brenda Tytanic had concealed an adulterous relation- him, ship Tytanic pre- Brenda obtaining vented a record of Tytanic’s type, and that were he able to obtain that prove information it would Phillip Tytanic was not his natural child. allegations, Based sought on these an order requiring parties from the court to submit to blood tests. plaintiff, Tytanic, Brenda (1) court,
to an order of the which found: question “That there is a of said (2) child involved.” “No further consent of necessary Defendant shall the event Plaintiff desires said minor child be adopted by present her husband or other (3) person.” light “In of the wishes and parties, desires of both it would be in the best interests of the minor child of these parental rights to have the and, likewise, Defendant duty terminated said minor child said Defen- dant terminated.” ¶4 Decedent April died intestate on brother, Joseph Tytanic, Decedent’s Nixon, L. Fagin, Fagin, Fagin & petition filed a for letters of administration City, Appellant. Oklahoma for May he, on alleged in which he Ty- his sister were Michael Entz, J. Michael Law Offices of J. Michael tanie’s sole heirs at law. The brother also Entz, Menzer, City, and James L. that, alleged although Phillip Tytanic claimed Offices, P.C., Blackwell, Menzer Ap- Law son, to be he was not. pellee. allegation, copy brother attached a vacation, order of OPINION discussed above, petition prayed to his for letters and WATT, Vice Chief Justice. that the court make a factual determination as to Tytanic’s who were Michael heirs at AND FACTS PROCEDURAL law. BACKGROUND decedent, Tytanic, (denom- Michael Dennis Tytanic filed an answer was involved in a common relationship “Reply”) law petition inated a to the brother’s only by alleged that was dece- he which he letters May heir. On father or their descendants.” son and sole
dent’s
Phil-
Tytanic
motion
filed a
¶ Phillip Tytanic
claims
the brother
testing for the
to DNA
lip Tytanic
is not one
decedent’s “descendants”
Phillip Ty-
determining whether
purpose
*3
and, therefore,
§
prohibited,
a matter
3
is
as
of
the
child
the decedent.
natural
tanic
law,
of
he is
having
of
the issue whether
¶
for sum-
filed motions
both
biological
by
child determined
judgment
in which the issue
mary
testing.
trial court and
DNA
the Court
of
Tytanic, as the brother
whether
brother,
Appeals agreed. The
how-
of Civil
as
of
prohibited,
a matter
is
ever,'claims
in this
statutory
disputing
presump-
pater-
matter entitle
to raise
issue of
by
legitimacy created
10 O.S.2001
of
tion
that,
501,3
§
nity
10
he is
and
under
O.S.2001
2(A)(1)
man is
provides that “a
§ 2.1 Section
Tytanic
requiring
an
Phillip
entitled to
a child
to
natural father of
presumed
be the
sample
testing,
a
for DNA
or be
provide
if:
purposes
He and
all intents and
for
not to be the decedent’s heir.
declared
natural
have been married
child’s
mother
8 For the reasons set out
the balance
during the
is born
other and the child
each
opinion,
we hold
2(B) provides,
marriage ...”
howev-
Section
Joseph Tytanic,
standing
under 10
did
er,
paternity creat-
presumption of
that “The
Ty-
§
to seek DNA
of
3
O.S.
may
disputed
be
pursuant
this section
ed
disprove
prove
in order
to either
or
tanic
[10
of this title
O.S.
pursuant
to 'Section 3
3(A)
Phillip Tytanic
is the decedent Michael
§ 2’s
provides
§
3].”2
2001
Section
“may
and
disputed
Tytanic’s son
heir.
paternity
of
be
presumption
entry into the
States
provides:
§
time of the child's
United
1.Title 10 O.S.2001
opportunity
at the
and he had
time
provided by
Except
as
Section
A.
otherwise
entry
States
or
child’s
into the United
to admit
Statutes,
is
of
a man
Title 84
the Oklahoma
relationship;
deny
paternal
or
for
of a child
presumed to be the natural father
probability
paternity
is estab-
5.Statistical
purposes
if:
all intents
(95%)
ninety-five
by
percent
at
or more
lished
scientifically
or
natural
are
1. He
the child’s
mother
tests,
genetic
including but
reliable
other
the child is
been married to each
limited to
tests.
not
(10)
during
marriage, or
ten
within
born
paternity
pursu-
presumption
B. The
created
by
marriage
after the termination
months
n
disputed
may
pursuant
to this
ant
section
death, annulment,
invalidity, di-
declaration of
3 of this title.
Section
dissolution,
separa-
or after a
vorce or
decree
by
A
before
is entered
a court.
child born
tion
provides:
§
2. Title 10 O.S.2001 3
by
legitimate
subsequent
wedlock becomes
is,
marriage
marriage
parents
even if the
his
paternity
pursu-
presumption
created
A. The
Any child
was or could be declared invalid.
may
only
disputed
to Section
this title
ant
period specified in
born within the ten-month
putative
father or
the husband or
during a
subsection which is born
subse-
Paternity may be established
their descendants.
marriage
person
pre-
quent
another
shall be
this title.
to Section 70 of
legitimate
subse-
to be the
child of that
sumed
during the
If a child is
course of
B.
born
marriage;
quent
marriage
wife
and is
the husband and
reared
birth, he
Before
child’s
and the child’s
family
disputing
without
as a
their
member
is
and the child
natural mother have cohabitated
legitimacy
period
of at least two
(10)
termi-
within
months after the
born
ten
(2)
disputed by
years,
presumption
cannot be
para-
cohabitation. As used in this
nation of
anyone.
dwelling
graph,
the term cohabitation means
together continuously
habitually
a man
provides:
§O.S.
3. Title 10
private conjugal
a woman who are in
paternity
relationship
marriage
is a rele-
ac-
In a civil action in
not solemnized
issue,
law;
cording
the court shall order
vant fact and
mother,
majori-
putative father to
age
child and
3. While the child is under the
testing.
any party refuses
ty,
openly
genetic
If
to submit
his
he receives the child into
home
tests,
question of
resolve the
such
court
holds out
child as
natural
(2)
against
party
enforce its order
such
or
period
years;
atof
least two
justice
Immigration
and the interests of
Natu-
others
4. The
States
if
United
is
to have
accepted
unless
individual
found
a determina-
so
such
ralization Service made
cooperate.
refusing
good cause for
that he
father of the child at the
tion
was the
analyzed
11 This
for 10
DISCUSSION
Court
the basis
Will,
3 in
re Peacock’s
expressly pro-
9 Title 10 O.S.2001 501
There,
that a
ing Phillip majority emphasizes The undisputed facts in the record before us mother into an order indicat- entered that both sense and convince us common issue; adoption ing that: was an require that the issue of whether fairness accomplished the minor could be with- son Tytanie is or is decedent’s consent; out the and the dece- and decided under Act. heir tried parental obligations dent’s *5 GRANT- CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY to this should be terminated. Pursuant ED, CIVIL APPEALS’ OPIN- OF COURT opinion in rel. Court’s State ex VACATED, ION JUDGMENT REVERSED T.D.G., v. 1993 OK Dept, Human Serv. WITH IN- AND REMANDED CAUSE agreement the P.2d mother’s STRUCTIONS. duty sup- regarding putative the father’s public port against policy. void as OPALA, SUMMERS, HODGES, recognized recently have that T.D.G. stands WINCHESTER, JJ., BOUDREAU, may, parent proposition for the no CONCUR. otherwise, settlement, through agreement, or compromise right the child’s to enforce a KAUGER, JJ., LAVENDER against parent.3 obligation its RESULT. CONCUR IN Therefore, agreement mother here the of the C.J., HARGRAVE, DISSENTS. might any right child have is irrelevant to the recovery support obli- pursue had to KAUGER, concurring in result: J. gations. in the reached the 1 I concur result parental rights presented, facts 3 The decedent’s majority that, the — Although the termination Ty- been terminated. petitioner-appellant, Joseph the precluded decedent, parental rights the decedent’s tantic, the has child, it right purported from 10 O.S.20015012 inherit under 10 O.S.2001 recipro- purported Phillip Tytantic had no on the son’s affect DNA seek mother, father to submit to provides: child O.S.2001 Title 10 any genetic testing. party to submit If refuses presumption created "A. tests, ques- may the may the court resolve this title such to Section 2 of only by puta- against disputed party or or enforce husband tion such Paternity or their tive father descendants. rights its of others and the interests order if pursuant to Section established justice individual is so unless such this title. refusing coop- good found cause for to have during the course B. If a child is born erate.” marriage and is reared family dis- wife as a member of their without —¶ 3.Hedges Hedges, P.3d 2002 OK period puting legitimacy child’s yet Although issued in -. mandate has not (2) years, presumption cannot be two least Hedges, the cause primary issue by anyone.” disputed to an altered concerned a mother's defenses agreement agreement, provides: 2. Title 10 O.S.2001 501 right. waiver paternity is civil action in which a rele- "In a issue, shall order the and at the court vant fact rights. cal pro- right Title 10 O.S.2001 7006-1.3 of the child to inherit parent.” pertinent part: [Emphasis vides in provided.]5 parental “A. The rights termination of majority that: “infers” the mother parent-child relationship, terminates court’s to avoid parent’s custody including right to the allowing the learn her son’s parent’s right of the and the to visit type; the decedent didn’t want his child, parent’s right to control the non-biological son; pass estate to education, training child’s the necessi- purported son could not as- have ty parent consent sumed the father intended to inherit. child, parent’s right of the to the earn- just might easily One “infer” from the child, ings parent’s right and the facts that: the mother have would through inherit from or child. Provid- anything timely obtained resolution ed, nothing any way herein parental termination of right affect of the child to inherit son; legal adoption being of her deemed to parent_” [Emphasis provid- intentionally know the the father failed ed.] a will purported execute so that the son would be the sole heir under the laws intes- Likewise, purported once the son was tate; and had he wanted his brother to share adopted, the father lost the to inherit estate, purported father would However, adop- son’s estate. even the result, executed will to ensure that tion does not affect the son’s of inheri- naming specifically the brother and disinher- purported tance from his father. Title 10 iting possibility the son. The that different 7505-2.1(L)(l) provides: might individuals consider same preadoption “The parental termination of differing draw “inferences” is one of rea- rights pursuant to this section terminates sons that review in limited *6 parent-child relationship, including the the issues shown the record to have actu- parent’s custody right to the of the child ally been and tendered to the trial parent’s right child, and the to visit the court.6 parent’s right to control training education, the necessity parent child, to consent
parent’s child, earnings parent’s inherit from or Provided,
through the child. any way
subsection
not in
affect
Flowers,
19, 0,¶
Auth.,
56, 9,¶
4. Matter of Estate
1993 OK
Dam
OK
897 P.2d
See
1138.
848 P.2d
also,
Grothaus,
Producing
Halliburton Oil
Co. v.
reviewing
1998 OK