Opinion ID: 1172041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the status of the mother's appeal

Text: Although the mother was the primary movant for securing below the certified interlocutory order, she appears here as a counter-appellant rather than as petitioner for certiorari under the provisions of 12 O.S. 1981 § 952(b)(3). The mother failed to appeal from the July 11, 1984 terminal order in the habeas corpus and custody modification proceedings. The error, if any was made in that decision, is beyond the reach of our reviewing cognizance. Errors are not correctible unless an appeal is timely brought from the terminal disposition. No postdecisional quest for relief  other than one made by a timely and authorized new-trial motion  will enlarge the time for appellate review of errors made in a final order of the trial court. [11] The 30-day time limit for lodging an appeal cannot be extended by a certified interlocutory order addressed to an appealable decision. [12] In the adoption case final adjudication was rendered on August 31, 1984. Although the mother's counter-appeal, directed to that decision, was timely brought, she cannot succeed here because we conclude that the trial court's refusal to assume jurisdiction in the proceeding for adoption was not clearly contrary to the law.
The mother argues the trial court had assumed jurisdiction in the adoption and custody modification contests by ordering visitation on April 4, 1984 and by rendering a restraining order on June 28, 1984. She asserts that the trial court erred in later refusing to assume jurisdiction of those disputes. The mother also questions the test applied below in determining the forum competent to decide her custody claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments. When declining to assume jurisdiction in the custody contest, the trial judge explicitly ruled that jurisdiction lay elsewhere. In the adoption case the court impliedly concluded it was unable to reach for decision the child's eligibility for a consentless adoption until litigation already begun and pending in another state (whose jurisdiction was being exercised) will have clarified the parties' custodial status. On this record, the trial court's order refusing to entertain the consentless adoption contest is clearly not contrary to the law. [13] The father's quest for corrective relief by appeal is dismissed for failure to establish aggrieved-party status and because the certification order lacks legal efficacy to invest this court with reviewing cognizance; the mother's appeal is treated as timely only with respect to the adoption case order, and the trial court's refusal to assume cognizance of that proceeding is affirmed. HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS and KAUGER, JJ., concur. DOOLIN, C.J., and SUMMERS, J., concur in part and dissent in part. HODGES and ALMA WILSON, JJ., dissent.