*1 PIERSON, Appellee Canupp Laura
Counter-Appellant, CANUPP, Appellant and
Otis
Counter-Appellee.
No. 68027. Oklahoma.
3,May 6,May
As Corrected *2 in
that refused assume both custody and the contests? question We answer the first the affirm- appeal; dismiss father’s ative and question, for the second our answer is also adop- the affirmative with to the that, disposition. tion case We hold while brought timely the mother’s was from that the trial court’s decision clearly contrary was not to the law. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASES A. The Arizona Antecedents the Cus- tody Contest parents are the of two minor 1978, they children. Divorced Arizona joint custody. awarded Four months were divorce, changed custody after the was paternal grandparents. Following sev- battles, custody eral more forensic was eventually returned the mother with visi- provisions tation made favor fa- The mother left Arizona in ther. October of 1982 without the father’s November knowledge Shortly thereafter or consent. the Arizona court found the mother tempt for her and issued a bench warrant Temporary custody of the children arrest. then awarded to the father who was was to learn of their whereabouts until unable March Habeas B. The Father’s Writ of Pawhuska, ap- for Wayne Woodyard, L. quest for
pellant counter-appellee. brought in the Oklahoma Tulsa, appellee Flynn, Robert A. claim on the Arizona court. His was based counter-appellant. temporary custody bench warrant sought He to take the children award. OPALA, Justice. litigation where their back to Arizona over Although the our deci- could be continued. presented Two sion: Is the father’s corrective writ was granted April 3,1384, its enforce ment was for 30 to allow relief from the trial court’s “certified inter- the children mother to to Arizona with locutory order” dismissible for his failure in that litigate her claim and to to establish status comply in- forum. In the event she failed certification is because directive, custody of the reviewing the court’s to invest this court with effective father. given bring Did the mother children was cognizance? and [2] for “reconsidera- timely request mother’s from the trial court’s order timely appeal of this denied children’s eligibility adop- tion” for a consentless tion. again directed and she was to seek Arizona. Corpus, Consolidation the Habeas E. Custody Adoption Contest and Cases Attempt The Mother’s to Gain Custo- C. in the District Court and Certifica- dy the Children tion Common Issues Interlocu- *3 of for tory Review day hearing of the habeas the filed a to have the trial mother Lastly, sought the mother to the and court assume determine separate three proceedings com- treated as S, custody. her claim for panion cases and to have 1984 to issues common granting the writ court re- all three for “certified” immediate review. to assume of fused the moth- The district acceded request to this August and on er’s for a contest. “Recon- certified the cases 1984 under stay of the habeas of also order for sideration” this was denied 30-day period. an additional July At of the end limit, this of the children was returned to if the the father mother did not D. Adoption Mother’s Petition for take longer them to Arizona or obtain a the Without Consent Father stay order from the Supreme Oklahoma sought The mother next to have the chil- Court. adopted by dren present her husband with- pro Nunc tunc and cor- F. the out natural consent. The clarification father’s trial rection July the and 1984 initially further arrested August orders the proceedings until Arizona court the could judgment jurisdictional determine the August contests. On he rendered Because the record of the trial court judgment declaring for the father the proceedings dispute fraught lacked to ambiguities,2 decide the we authorized the moth- 1. The to August so-called "motion reconsider” is a while stranger statutory to the poor draftsmanship, merely nomenclature Okla- were intended to prius practice procedure. homa nisi timely Writ, If stay the of the the enforcement not filed, may a motion to reconsider Further, be granting transcript of same. that the regarded as one for under new trial 12 O.S.1981 hearing of the appeal 651 and to hence as effective extend granted, shows that the Writ had been to-wit: judgment. time review of a final order or 12) (p. line Horizons, Co., Okl., Leasing Inc. v. KEO Woodyard granted Mr. ... If the writ is 758-759 It also be [1984]. treated as they stay right they have no to unless can one or to a final vacate order or Supreme say you Court and cannot judgment under of 12 terms enforce until this Writ is taken 1031 and 1031.1. If motion falls §§ into the saying previ- unless this Court is that the Writ class, latter it will not extend time to seek ously granted going is to be enforced review of the to which final.order days. Salyer Convoy, it is directed. v. National Trailer right.” The Court ... That’s Inc., Okl., During hearing the November tunc correction father’s counsel stated: 2. The filed court on in this October " * * * this, part First of all and I’m a “Agreed Stipulations,” perti- which state in really unacceptable confusion in this case is part: nent lawyers. unfortunately I am of this parties disagree "4. The over whether the really very proud matter and I am of the court issued the Writ of [district] Habeas Cor- gone up record as it’s before the pus only stayed its execution. my Court.... It’s view in answer each Appellee a. contends that the Writ was questions deciding these the Court granted never but from right by hearing hearing. now what the Court intended each Appellant respectfully these b. answers. I would submit contends the Writ was just granted hearing would ask the Court to read Appellee's as a result of failure them to return to and to answer as the Court Appellant argues they Arizona. further that orders intended reflected in be the written petition- on motion or either amended er to seek clarification correction in-error,4 sought ordered to be here has neither cor- judge as this court’s conducted special relief from the master’s rective authority special judge’s The trial master. findings. There is hence no contest about to act was limited to matters contained or correctness. validity 24,1984 sought our order.3 October We had have him determine whether the writ II 1984 and fact been later 1984 order. withdrawn THE THE STATUS OF hearing, After a court clarified APPEAL FATHER’S by finding record that its writ opposed The father had not modified the later been certification order as well as the ruling. corpus. He now stay nothing There is on this record to indi- argues wrongly issued. that the order was *4 cate judge’s correctly if Even that order had been ren- No contention findings. by is advanced appealable dered the father would lack an either that the correction order is because, below, as he is interest shown contrary proof special adduced at the aggrieved by any judicial of the actions he hearing. findings master’s The tenders for our review. supported by entry” the “record of the issuance, special writ’s and the master’s A to review a certified ruling with- the writ had been interlocutory comply must order with the drawn also stands uncontradicted either 952(b)(3)5 terms of 12 O.S.1981 § short, by testimony. the record or provisions Rules 1.50-1.56.6 The of entirety record in its leaves us free viewed 952(b)(3) require plainly that an interlocu § from that the writ had issued doubt been tory order to be certified for our review 3, and remained on 1984 undisturbed part a substantial the merits affect of of 11, July the trial court’s 1984 order. controversy.7 power Our to review clearly is confined certified orders to those legal soundness of a trial While prejudgment issues on the mid-appeal which deal with tunc record correction merits of a challenge controversy. open this court is Certification and ordered 3.The ber the habeas fy April 4. Did the particulars? Answer: consent of the father "1. Was a writ recited in the al, 2. written children? 5. Was the counsel." record the fault of which lies with 1984 Yes” Yes. Did the Did the trial court rule on prior April questions posed by this court in its Octo- 1984 memorial of it did not have judge Answer: Yes. [Transcript order and the answers submitted overruling motions to reconsider corpus over the petition for August motions on November court, of habeas 3, 1984, children? Answer: No. No. at dismissed for lack of ruling 1984 jurisdiction pgs. and, that it did as recited reconsider, written memori- 1984? corpus with 1984? Answer: 4 and if in its so, myself 1984 not have over the Answer: July 5]. in what without in fact modi- are: as 4. See 6. Rules 5. The terms of 12 O.S.1981 § Beasler, Appeal, and Roark v. Shelter Mut. Ins. 389, lough Oklahoma Trust, 1332, 1334 [1981]. White v. Community when stantial "(b) mate termination ate district [Emphasis added.] pertinent part: 390 [1987] modify appeal may materially Armstrong v. Okl., Any Okl., [******] 1.50-1.56, Wensauer, Okl., Safeway court, City, O.S.1981, 667 P.2d other any National (Opala, or a Okl., the merits Rules on Stores, Inc., order, 985, Trustees Ch. judge certifies Bank following J., concurring). 987 which affects a sub- thereof: litigation; [1983] Perfecting App. of advance the ulti- 952(b)(3) provide [1974]; that an immedi- Okl., reverse, Hamilton Inv. Warr orders of the and McCul- controversy 626 P.2d Young Acres [1974]; * * vacate Civil *’’ interlocutory review of an imper order is it is ineffective to invest us reviewing when, here, disposition missible on the cognizance.10 already merits had been effected.8 Inasmuch as in this case the Ill
assumption
THE
STATUS OF THE
modification contest and
habeas
MOTHER’S APPEAL
finally
prior
had been
resolved
to the dis-
trict court’s August
“certification
A.
Appeal
Timeliness
order”, nothing is tendered for our “inter-
Although the
primary
mother was the
locutory”
Moreover, any
review.
matter
securing
movant for
below the certified
clearly-
decided
1984 order
interlocutory
appears
she
here as a
beyond
stood
appellate
the reach
our
“counter-appellant”
petition-
rather than as
cognizance
at the time of the
er for
provisions
certiorari under the
of 12
certification. More than 30
had
952(b)(3).
lapsed
then
from the date of that order.
30-day
suspension granted
interim
The mother failed
from
the trial court’s
1984 order
terminal order in the
was to enable
stay
the mother to obtain a
and custody modification
from this
stay
court. Since no
was afford-
error,
proceedings.
any
if
was made
ed her here
30-day period
and the
of sus-
decision,
beyond
the reach of our
pension
expired,
had now
this issue is moot.
reviewing cognizance. Errors are not cor-
*5
challenge
appeal
rectible unless an
timely brought
to the va
is
lidity of
disposition.
the certification
from the
postdeci-
order is dismissi
terminal
No
aggrieved
ble. He
is not
sional
for relief—other than one
attempt
court’s
31st
certify
timely
made
a
and authorized new-trial
Moreover,
case.9
because the
enlarge
certification motion—will
appellate
the time for
does not tender for our
any
review
interloc
review of errors made in a final order of
utory disposition
case,
on the
merits
the trial court.11
30-day
time limit for
8.
Petroleum
Beasler,
sion which is
icated on that interest in the trial court’s deci-
affect one’s substantial
One cannot
530 [1980].
throp,
Okl.,
Ins.
are not embraced within the term. These are
fies the real or substantial
its" has a well-defined
Community National Bank Warr Acres v.
of defense.
matters “dehors the merits”. Flick v.
v. Oklahoma
an
390;
Okl.,
or after trial —are not certifiable for
Wensauer,
Standing
party has
An
Issues dehors the
status. State ex reL Dorland v.
only
tion Board Comanche
interlocutory
Co.,
appeal
Bilecki v. Service Collection
a moot
supra note 7 at 814.
(Opal
Corp.
supra note 7 at 16. The word “mer
appeal
645 P.2d
will be
failed to establish
Practice,
prosecute
direct,
City, supra
a, J.,
question
order. Roark v. Shelter Mut.
from a decision that does not
Harrison, Okl.,
merits —
concurring),
dismissed if it
immediate and substantial.
meaning
procedure and evidence
rights.
an
[1967];
is
517 [1982] and
note
County,
appeal
grounds
arising
involved
Underside v. La-
in law. It
see
supra note 7 at
must be
at 23-24 and
621 P.2d
County
180 Okl.
appears
either before
also,
Ass'n., Inc.,
review of
action or
White v.
Crouch,
that a
Cleary
Young
signi
Elec-
pred-
10. The certification order is
phone
ries Co. v.
kins v.
Co., Okl.,
which
ders a final
note 1 at
mediate review and
Tolliver v. First Nat.
finds that the “three
state of the
ion cases for immediate
tender
dy
mination of the
which
falls short of minimum
1.50-1.56,
952(b)(3), supra
State,
60,
what did decide.” Stevens Ex
pert Stevens, Cleaners Dyers &