Title: YNCLAN v. WOODWARD
Citation: 2010 OK 29
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: March 23, 2010

YNCLAN v. WOODWARD Annotate this Case YNCLAN v. WOODWARD 2010 OK 29 Case Number: 107478 Decided: 03/23/2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOAH SHAWN YNCLAN, Petitioner, v. The Honorable PAUL K WOODWARD, Special District Judge, Respondent. APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. The Honorable Paul K. Woodward, Trial Judge ¶0 The mother filed for a divorce in Garfield County. In an effort to determine custody of the couple's four children, the trial judge privately interviewed three of the older children in camera -- neither the parents nor their counsel were present. A court reporter was present and questions were allowed to be submitted by counsel. The trial court granted the divorce and awarded custody to the mother, and the father subsequently requested transcripts of the children's testimony which was denied by the trial court. The father seeks relief in this Court. This opinion sets forth the guidelines for trial courts to conduct in camera interviews of children in child custody/visitation disputes and holds that unless one or both of the parties appeal the custody/visitation determination, due process does not require that either parent have access to the transcript of the in camera interview of the children merely to satisfy their own curiosity. Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.33, 12 O.S. 2001 Ch. 15, App. 1 is amended to reflect today's pronouncement. Original jurisdiction is assumed and the writ of mandamus is denied. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.33 AMENDED. William B. Maxwell, Enid, Oklahoma, for Petitioner. Michael D. Roberts, Enid, Oklahoma, for Respondent. KAUGER, J. ¶1 This is a case of first impression. We have never determined under what circumstances and conditions a trial court may: 1) conduct in camera FACTS ¶2 Because the matter is presented as a request to assume original jurisdiction and to issue a writ of mandamus, the facts in the record are relatively sparse. It appears that Nancy Ynclan (the mother) and Nolan Shawn Ynclan (the petitioner/father) were married on Valentine's Day 1996. The couple had four children born in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2004, and on February 27, 2008, the mother filed for divorce from the father in Garfield County District Court. ¶3 The matter proceeded to trial on January 14 and January 30, 2009. On the second day of trial, the trial judge interviewed the three oldest children, in chambers, without counsel or the parents being present. However, a court reporter was present to take notes. The three interviews lasted less than fifteen minutes. The mother insists that counsel for both sides agreed not to be present in the interview, but that written questions were submitted. According to the father, after the interview, he promptly made an informal request for the transcript of the children's interviews and tendered his cost deposit. This request was denied and at the conclusion of the trial, the court granted the divorce and awarded the mother custody of the children. ¶4 On February 13, 2009, the father made a formal request to the court to review the transcript of the children's testimony. The court held a hearing on March 2, 2009, and denied the father's request for the transcript. The divorce decree was filed on April 6, 2009. According to the mother, the trial court indicated that the transcript could be made available for purposes of appeal, but the father did not appeal from the divorce decree. On August 27, 2009, the trial court filed a written order reflecting its decision on March 2, 2009, denying the father review of the transcript. On August 28, 2009, the father filed an application and brief for mandamus in this Court, seeking an order which would direct the trial court to allow him access to the transcript. ( No transcript has been made available to this Court for review.) ¶5 We assume original jurisdiction to delineate the proper procedure for a trial court to follow when considering an in camera interview in the context of child custody and/or visitation disputes. Under the facts presented, we also deny the writ of mandamus. ¶6 I. GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING IN CAMERA INTERVIEWS IN CHILD CUSTODY /VISITATION DISPUTES PURSUANT TO ¶7 The father argues that 20 O.S. Supp. 2007 §106.4(a) and 43 O.S. Supp. 2002 §113(c), taken collectively, require that in camera interviews of children in custody proceedings be transcribed and that the statutes also require the trial court to allow the parents to review such transcripts. In other words, he alleges that the transcripts may not be sealed from either the parties or their attorneys. ¶8 Title 20 O.S. Supp. 2007 §106.4(a), governs the duties of court reporters and it provides in pertinent part: . . . A refusal of the court to permit or to require any statement to be taken down by the court reporter or transcribed after being taken down, upon the same being shown by affidavit or other direct and competent evidence, to the Supreme Court, or other appellate court, shall constitute a denial of due process of law. . . .3 We have held that when the trial court denies a timely request for reporting the statements of counsel and the court in a judicial proceeding, due process is denied. ¶9 Title . . .C. If the child expresses a preference or gives testimony, such preference or testimony may be taken by the court in chambers without the parents or other parties present. If attorneys are not allowed to be present, the court shall state, for the record, the reasons for their exclusion. At the request of either party, a record shall be made of any such proceeding in chambers. . . . ¶10 The mother does not address §106.4, but, instead, argues that the father is attempting to add requirements into §113 which do not exist. She also contends that we should not assume original jurisdiction in this cause because the father could have appealed the final divorce decree and raised the issue of his denial of access to transcript at that time. Neither party addresses the applicability, if any, of Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.33(e), 12 O.S. 2001 Ch. 15, App. 1, which governs the access to transcripts on appeal. It provides: (e) Access to the Record by Parties or Counsel. Until a uniform rule of procedure has been promulgated by this court, the parties shall have access to the transcript and to the bound instruments on file in the trial court on such terms as that court may impose. ¶11 Neither the statutes nor the rule expressly require the father to be provided with a transcript. We recognize that the mother is correct that the father could have appealed the divorce decree and raised his denial of access to the transcript argument. Nevertheless, because this issue is a matter of public interest, at least to the extent that it could potentially be raised in every divorce case in which custody or visitation of children is disputed, we assume original jurisdiction and address the procedure for conducting such interviews and whether, or in what circumstances, a parent should be entitled to access to such transcripts after the interview. Because the issue is a common occurrence in our courts, we have conducted an extensive review of sister states for guidance in constructing this procedure. ¶12 The procedure of a trial judge conducting a private, in camera interview with a child, depending upon age and maturity, has been widely used as a means of discovering the child's custodial preference. 1) elimination of the harm a child might suffer from exposure to examination and cross-examination and the adversarial nature of the proceedings generally; ¶13 Obviously, the purpose of such a hearing is not to lessen the ordeal for the parents, but, rather, to lessen the ordeal for the child. Nor is it intended to make a secret of the basis for the court's findings. ¶14 Because the interview is not held in open court, in the presence of the parents, courts have also recognized that such a procedure is contrary to the basic concepts of an adversarial system. ¶15 The Wyoming Court also noted several due process implications which arise in custody litigation such as the parent's right to associate with and rear his or her child [a/k/a a "liberty interest" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States], or to enjoy their children's companionship, and to direct upbringing. When an in camera interview is proposed, other implications also arise such as the right to be apprised of all the evidence upon which an issue is to be decided and the right to examine, explain or rebut such evidence including the right to hear or cross-examine witnesses. The Wyoming Court noted that when a judge interviews a child in private without the consent of a parent, the parent is deprived of due process inasmuch as he or she is unable to hear the evidence, and is not given an opportunity to explain or rebut statements made by the child. ¶16 Consequently, a balancing of parental due process rights with the child's right to be heard and the court's interest in hearing the child is obviously required. Numerous courts have addressed the issue of how such an interview should be conducted, whether it should be recorded, and whether the parents should have access to the transcript to comport with due process implications. ¶17 In spite of the due process implications, in camera interviews are widely used as a means of discovering a child's custodial preference. ¶18 Other various procedures have been developed, in attempts to resolve the conflict between the parental due process rights with the child's right to be heard. For instance, a number of states require, either by statute or judicial holding, that in camera conversations with children must be recorded. ¶19 Taken together, 1) require the court to determine that the best interest of the child will be served by expressing preference; 2) generally give the trial court discretion to consider a child's preference unless if the child is of sufficient age, [presumably 12 or older], in which case the court is required to consider the expression of preference or other testimony; 3) expressly allow counsel to be present, but provides that if the lawyers are not allowed in the interview, the reasons for their exclusion must be expressly stated by the trial court; ¶20 In order to provide a proper balance of parental due process rights with the child's right to be heard, we hereby adopt the following guidelines for trial courts to utilize when planning to conduct an in camera custodial or visitation child preference interview: 1) If the trial court or the parties consider the possibility of an in camera interview of the children, then the trial court, pursuant to 2) If the parents consent to the interview being in chambers, or otherwise waive their own presence, the judge may proceed with an in camera interview. 3) If one or both parents object to being excluded, the trial court must consider whether the parents want counsel present. This consideration should include whether to allow counsel to be present, allow counsel to question the child, or allow counsel to submit questions to be asked. Whether the trial court allows the counsel to participate in the questioning or submit questions is within the trial court's discretion. If no objection is made regarding this issue, the parties waive objection to the issue on appeal. If the judge proceeds with an in camera interview without counsel present, pursuant to 4) The next issue to be considered on the record is whether either or both parents request that a court reporter be present. If a request for a court reporter is made, the court reporter must be present and the interview shall be recorded -- otherwise the parties waive objection to the issue on appeal. ¶21 Although we adopt these guidelines today, we realize that trial courts have not previously had a uniform procedure to follow. Nevertheless, following these guidelines will set forth the due process standards from which we will measure objections to or allegations concerning due process issues in custody/visitation cases in all future cases including those already in the appellate pipeline. ¶22 II. UNLESS THE PARENTS OR A PARENT APPEALS THE CUSTODY/VISITATION DETERMINATION, DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EITHER PARENT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILDREN MERELY TO SATISFY CURIOSITY. ¶23 Once a record is made, the question becomes whether it must be made available to the parties, and if so when? Again, the procedures vary from state to state. In some states, the record must be made available to the parties. ¶24 Our research reveals one New Jersey case directly on point, and we agree with its result. In Uherek v. Sathe, 391 N.J. Super. 164, 917 A.2d 306, 308 (2007), cert denied by Uherek v. Uherek, 192 N.J. 72 (2007), the court addressed whether a father, nearly four years after dissolution of marriage, was entitled to transcripts of the trial judge's in camera interview with the parties' child. The New Jersey rule, . . .it remains true that a litigant's attempt to learn what a child has expressed to the judge would, if honored, do little but invade the child's private communications and ought not be permitted absent a pending custody dispute. The interview occurs in camera because the child is entitled to a degree of privacy which preserves, so far as possible, the child's "freedom of expression." Lavene, supra, 148 N.J.Super. at 272, 372 A.2d 629 . To render such private statements more readily available than required by the demands of due process and R. 5:8-6, would tend to jeopardize the court's ability to gain a full and frank exposition of a child's preferences and views. Simple common sense suggests that children, who are put in the predicament of being asked their preferences in a custody battle, will more openly express their views outside the presence of their parents or their attorneys. In the interests of both gaining the best evidence available and protecting the child's right to privacy in such matters, the child should be free to speak openly. This is less likely to occur if the child's verbatim comments are readily available. Of course, we recognize that R. 5:8-6 permits the release of such information when there is a pending custody proceeding. But, absent that circumstance, there is no existing basis for such a turnover, even to a parent, of the child's private communications and we find no reason to create such a right here. (Emphasis supplied.) ¶25 Like the father in Uherek, supra, the petitioner here does not seek the transcript to rely on for an appeal of the custody dispute. In fact, no appeal has been lodged regarding custody. Rather, he seeks the transcript merely to satisfy his curiosity. We agree with the rationale utilized by the New Jersey court, and decline to create a right to transcripts pursuant to ¶26 III. OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RULE 1.33, 12 O.S. 2001 Ch. 15, App. 1 IS HEREBY AMENDED TO ADDRESS ACCESS TO TRANSCRIPTS OF IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS IN CHILD CUSTODY /VISITATION DISPUTES. ¶27 Today's holding necessitates that we add subsection (f) and amend Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.33 (e), 12 O.S. 2001 Ch. 15, App. 1 (f) Access to the Record by Parties or Counsel in Custody/Visitation Disputes. When a parent intends to appeal a custody or visitation determination and the trial court has previously held an in camera interview with the child or children, and a transcript of the proceeding was taken either by order of the trial court or by request of the parties, the transcript shall be provided the parties upon request and payment of costs. If no appeal is taken, it is within the trial court's discretion whether to allow the parties access to the transcripts. CONCLUSION ¶28 Neither ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WINCHESTER, REIF J.J. concur. OPALA, COLBERT, J.J., concur in part and dissent in part. WATT, J., dissents. FOOT