S.W. v. Duncan

2001 OK 39 (Okla. 2001) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 8, 2001 · No. No. 94,358

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that an Oklahoma court retaining exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over an initial child-custody determination did not lose that jurisdiction upon the death of the custodial parent. It further held that a simultaneous Kansas custody proceeding was not conducted in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, so the Oklahoma proceeding could continue. The court recast the petition in error as an application for extraordinary relief and declined to issue a writ of prohibition.

Holdings

  1. The temporary custody and guardianship order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable because no statute making it appealable was identified.
  2. The Supreme Court properly recast the petition in error as an application to assume original jurisdiction and a petition for writ of prohibition to address challenges to the district court's authority and jurisdiction.
  3. Although the father acquired custody rights upon the death of the custodial mother, the Oklahoma district court that made the initial custody determination in the divorce proceeding retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify custody.
  4. The Oklahoma modification proceeding was proper despite having been commenced after the Kansas proceeding because the Kansas court was not exercising modification jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the U.C.C.J.E.A.
  5. The Court declined to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the temporary custody and fitness findings in the prohibition proceeding.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over the temporary custody and guardianship order.
  2. Whether the Oklahoma district court retained continuing child-custody jurisdiction after the death of the custodial parent.
  3. Whether the Oklahoma custody proceeding was proper despite the earlier-filed Kansas proceeding.
  4. Whether prohibition was an appropriate vehicle to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's temporary custody and fitness findings.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (24)

  • Renbarger v. Renbarger, 1994 OK 140, 889 P.2d 1250(followed)
  • Kantor v. Kantor, 1994 OK 132, 886 P.2d 480(followed)
  • Elliott v. Elliott, 1954 OK 356, 279 P.2d 328(followed)
  • LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Properties, 1996 OK 73, 918 P.2d 1388(followed)
  • F.D.I.C. v. Tidwell, 1991 OK 119, 820 P.2d 1338(followed)
  • In the Matter of B.C., 1988 OK 4, 749 P.2d 542(followed)
  • Keating v. Johnson, 1996 OK 61, 918 P.2d 51(followed)
  • Ellison v. Ellison, 1996 OK 64, 919 P.2d 1(followed)
  • Holt v. District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, 1981 OK 39, 626 P.2d 1336(followed)
  • Dowell v. Powers, 1960 OK 246, 357 P.2d 954(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…