Case ID: p3d_368/html/0435-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

2016 OK 24
    Rebekkah NEWLAND, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Laura TAYLOR, Defendant/Appellee.
    No. 113,928.
    Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
    March 1, 2016.
   ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, THE HONORABLE LYNNE McGUIRE, PRESIDING

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISPOSITION

{1 Rule 1.201 of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules provides that "[iln any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary, disposition this rule and the controlling decision." Oklg. S. Ct. Rule 1. 201

2 After rev1ew1ng the record in thls case, THE COURT FINDS that our recent decision in Ramey v. Sutton, 2015 OK 79, 362 P.3d 217, disposes of the issues in this case.

13 In Ramey, we made clear our intent "to recognize those unmarried same sex couples who, prior to Bishop [v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th.Cir.), cert. denied, 574 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 271, 190 L.Ed.2d 139 (2014)] and Obergefell [v. Hodges, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015) ], entered into committed relationships, engaged in family planning with the intent to parent jointly and then shared in those responsibilities after the child was born." Id. at ¶ 19.

14 Newland and Taylor engaged in a two year same sex relationship before discussing having a family and raising a child together. The couple was not legally able to marry in Oklahoma in 2008, The couple made arrangements for Taylors artificial insemination. Taylor became pregnant. Newland was present at the delivery of their child.

1 5 The couple's romantic relationship ended approximately six months after delivery of their child. Taylor and Newland shared custody since the birth of their child, They have both held themselves out to the public as the parents of the minor child. Taylor prepared a baby book reﬂectmg Newland as the other parent. , ,

[ 6 We find that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss, and that Fleming has standing to pursue a best interests of the child hearing. |

7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the district court's order of dismissal is vacated, and the cause remanded to the district 'court for further proceedings.

ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.