Court Opinion

ID: 9546774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:35:12.328077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:50.763924
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
I believe that the controlling criterion for awarding or modifying custody and visitation orders by any court in this state shall always be what is in the best interest of the child, other statutory provisions merely being factors which may be considered. Accordingly, it is my position that this Court in Griffy v. McAllister, 59 OBJ 1884 (June 16, 1988) and Cooper v. Cooper, 616 P.2d 1154 (Okla.1980) effected intrastate application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, as adopted by our State Legislature at 10 O.S.1981, §§ 1601-1627. Today’s majority interpretation, in my opinion, denies equal protection of the law to intrastate litigants vis a vis interstate litigants, but moreover, denies consideration that in many cases it may be in the child’s best interest to litigate the matter in the intrastate jurisdiction where the child has the most significant connection.
In the case now before this Court, the home of the child is located in Washington County, and there is available in Washington County substantial evidence as to the present and future care, welfare and personal relationships of the minor child. While not absolutely controlling, these considerations should not be precluded. Intrastate application of the substantive criteria of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act achieves a balancing of the child’s best interests in addition to those of the parental contestants. Section 1603 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act provides:

§ 1603. Application of act

The provisions of this act shall apply to all custody proceedings brought within this state, whether as an initial proceeding or modification, and regardless of the absence of jurisdictional dispute.

I am convinced that the intent of the Legislature, as manifested in this section, dictates equal application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act both interstate and intrastate. Under the circumstances, however, it appears incumbent upon the State Legislature to state more clearly its intent in the matter of the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.