Opinion ID: 1172041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the status of the father's appeal

Text: The father opposed the August 31, 1984 certification order as well as the trial judge's stay in habeas corpus. He now argues that the order was wrongly issued. Even if that order had been correctly rendered the father would lack an appealable interest because, as shown below, he is not aggrieved by any of the judicial actions he tenders for our review. A proceeding to review a certified interlocutory order must comply with the terms of 12 O.S. 1981 § 952(b)(3) [5] and Rules 1.50-1.56. [6] The provisions of § 952(b)(3) plainly require that an interlocutory order to be certified for our review affect a substantial part of the merits of the controversy. [7] Our power to review certified orders clearly is confined to those which deal with prejudgment issues on the merits of a controversy. Certification and review of an interlocutory order is impermissible when, as here, a disposition on the merits had already been effected. [8] Inasmuch as in this case the quest for assumption of jurisdiction in the custody modification contest and in habeas corpus had been finally resolved prior to the district court's August 31, 1984 certification order, nothing is tendered for our interlocutory review. Moreover, any matter decided by the July 11, 1984 order clearly stood beyond the reach of our appellate cognizance at the time of the August 31, 1984 certification. More than 30 days had then lapsed from the date of that order. The 30-day interim suspension granted by the trial court's August 31, 1984 order was to enable the mother to obtain a stay from this court. Since no stay was afforded her here and the 30-day period of suspension had now expired, this issue is moot. The father's challenge to the validity of the certification order is dismissible. He is not aggrieved by the trial court's August 31st attempt to certify the case. [9] Moreover, because the certification does not tender for our review any interlocutory disposition on the merits of the case, it is ineffective to invest us with reviewing cognizance. [10]