Opinion ID: 2571566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: ¶ 12 The issue of the Oklahoma court's continuing jurisdiction after the initial order approving adoption expenses, under 10 O.S.2001 § 7505-3.2, was raised in the trial court. The trial court held that jurisdiction continued. We agree. Under the Interstate Compact Act, the sending agency shall continue to have financial responsibility for support and maintenance of the child during the period of the placement. Article V(a). Jurisdiction over the child continues in Oklahoma until the receiving state notifies the sending agency [10] in writing that the proposed placement is in the interests of the child. See 10 O.S.2001 § 571, Article III(d). [11] Article V(a) also provides the sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child to determine all necessary matters in relation to the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state, until the child is adopted. . . . ¶ 13 Florida Adoption Agency appears to acknowledge the authority of the sending agency under Article V(a). However, it argues the birth mother, not Administrator Nomura, is designated the sending agency on the Form 100A, and that Nomura is required to forward to Florida any information she provided. Agency contends the receiving state actually approves whether placement is proper and Nomura has no authority to refuse to sign the 100A and send it to Florida. ¶ 14 We disagree with Agency's contention that Nomura has a duty to rubber stamp any information received from the birth mother and forward it to Florida. The Interstate Compact Act allows the proper authorities of the state from which the placement is made to obtain the most complete information on the basis on which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made. Article I(c). The receiving state may request additional information. Article III(c). [12] In fact, in this case, the Florida Administrator contacted Nomura with concerns about the lack of notice to the Tribe. This led to Nomura's withdrawal of the original Form 100A. [13] ¶ 15 Nomura contends the Interstate Compact Act charges him, as the sending state's Interstate Compact official, with the duty of determining documentation exists showing maximum opportunity is taken to find a suitable environment for the child, Article I(a). He also contends the Oklahoma Act requires a parent wishing to relinquish his parental rights out of state to utilize the tribe's resources to the maximum extent possible. See 10 O.S.2001 § 40.6. He stated his signature on the 100A indicates to a receiving state that the evaluation process is complete. At the time of this appeal, that had not been done. ¶ 16 Nomura contends Agency attempts to ignore the clear intent of federal and state law favoring placement with Indian families by designating the birth mother as the sending agency. Whether it was done to evade the purposes of the Federal Act or Oklahoma's jurisdiction is an issue for the trier of fact.