Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a biological mother's second motion for reconsideration in a guardianship proceeding involving a child whose parental rights had been terminated and who had been adopted. The court held that notice to the child's adoptive parents was required, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed without such notice, and that the motion could be denied without a hearing.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Biological Mother's second motion for reconsideration.
- Notice to the Department of Human Services did not satisfy the statutory requirement because the Department no longer had custodial rights over the child; the adoptive parents were required to receive notice.
- The district court could decide the motion without a hearing because Rule 4(h) permits motions to be decided without a hearing when the court provides written notice of its ruling.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Biological Mother's second motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the district court properly denied the guardianship petition because the child's parents had not received the statutorily required notice.
- Whether the district court could decide the motion without holding the scheduled hearing.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42, ¶¶ 10-11, 328 P.3d 1192, 1196-97(followed)
- Kerr v. Clary, 2001 OK 90, ¶ 7, 37 P.3d 841, 843(followed)
- Bank of Okla., N.A. v. Red Arrow Marina Sales & Service, Inc., 2009 OK 77, ¶ 11, 224 P.3d 685, 693(followed)
- Brigman v. Cheney, 1910 OK 316, ¶ 5, 112 P. 993, 994(followed)
- Read v. Read, 2001 OK 87, ¶ 15 n.18, 57 P.3d 561, 567 n.18(followed)
- Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Servs., Inc., 2008 OK 29, ¶¶ 11-12, 198 P.3d 877, 881-82(followed)
- Williams v. State, No. 112,425 (Okla. Mar. 3, 2015)(mentioned)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…