Court Opinion

ID: 9797794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:29:29.738319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:41.418825
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, J.
concurring in result:
¶ 1 I concur in the result reached by the majority — that, under the facts presented, the petitioner-appellant, Joseph Charles Ty-tantic, brother of the decedent, has standing under 10 O.S.2001 § 31 and 10 O.S.2001 5012 to seek DNA testing of Phillip Tytantic for purposes of establishing a paternity relationship with the decedent. I write separately to emphasize three points: 1). a mother may not, through agreement or otherwise, relieve a putative father of the obligation to support his minor child; 2) neither termination of the decedent’s parental rights nor the adoption of the purported son affects the right of a child to inherit; and 3) when reviewing a cause, this Court relies on the record evidence rather than on some arbitrary “inference.”
¶ 2 The majority emphasizes that the mother entered into an agreed order indicating that: paternity was an issue; adoption of the minor child could be accomplished without the decedent’s consent; and the decedent’s parental rights and support obligations should be terminated. Pursuant to this Court’s opinion in State ex rel. Oklahoma Dept, of Human Serv. v. T.D.G., 1993 OK 126, 861 P.2d 990, the mother’s agreement regarding the putative father’s duty of support was void as against public policy. We have recently recognized that T.D.G. stands for the proposition that no parent may, through settlement, agreement, or otherwise, compromise the child’s right to enforce a support obligation against its parent.3 Therefore, the agreement of the mother here is irrelevant to any right the child might have had to pursue recovery of support obligations.
¶ 3 The decedent’s parental rights had been terminated. Although the termination of parental rights precluded the decedent’s right to inherit from his purported child, it had no affect on the purported son’s recipro*254cal rights. Title 10 O.S.2001 § 7006-1.3 provides in pertinent part:
“A. The termination of parental rights terminates the parent-child relationship, including the parent’s right to the custody of the child and the parent’s right to visit the child, the parent’s right to control the child’s training and education, the necessity for the parent to consent to the adoption of the child, the parent’s right to the earnings of the child, and the parent’s right to inherit from or through the child. Provided, that nothing herein shall in any way affect the right of the child to inherit from the parent_” [Emphasis provided.] 4
Likewise, once the purported son was adopted, the father lost the right to inherit the son’s estate. However, even the adoption does not affect the son’s right of inheritance from his purported father. Title 10 O.S. 7505-2.1(L)(l) provides:
“The preadoption termination of parental rights pursuant to this section terminates the parent-child relationship, including the parent’s right to the custody of the child and the parent’s right to visit the child, the parent’s right to control the child’s training and education, the necessity for the parent to consent to the adoption of the child, the parent’s right to the earnings of the child, and the parent’s right to inherit from or through the child. Provided, that this subsection shall not in any way affect the right of the child to inherit from the parent.” [Emphasis provided.]5
¶ 4 The majority “infers” that: the mother agreed to the trial court’s order to avoid allowing the decedent to learn her son’s blood type; the decedent didn’t want his estate to pass to a non-biological son; and that the purported son could not have assumed the father intended him to inherit. One might just as easily “infer” from the facts that: the mother would have agreed to anything to have obtained a timely resolution of the termination of parental rights and legal adoption of her son; being deemed to know the law, the father intentionally failed to execute a will so that the purported son would be the sole heir under the laws intestate; and had he wanted his brother to share in the estate, the purported father would have executed a will to ensure that result, naming the brother and specifically disinheriting the son. The possibility that different individuals might consider the same facts and draw differing “inferences” is one of the reasons that review in this Court is limited to the issues shown by the record to have actually been presented and tendered to the trial court.6

. Title 10 O.S.2001 § 3 provides:
"A. The presumption of paternity created pursuant to Section 2 of this title may be disputed only by the husband or wife, the putative father or their descendants. Paternity may be established pursuant to Section 70 of this title.
B. If a child is born during the course of the marriage and is reared by the husband and wife as a member of their family without disputing the child’s legitimacy for a period of at least two (2) years, the presumption cannot be disputed by anyone.”

. Title 10 O.S.2001 § 501 provides:
"In a civil action in which paternity is a relevant fact and at issue, the court shall order the mother, child and putative father to submit to genetic testing. If any party refuses to submit to such tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity against such party or enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of justice so require unless such individual is found to have good cause for refusing to cooperate.”

.Hedges v. Hedges, 2002 OK 92, ¶ 1, — P.3d -. Although mandate has not yet issued in Hedges, the primary issue presented in the cause concerned a mother's defenses to an altered child support agreement, not the agreement or waiver of the child’s right.

. Matter of Estate of Flowers, 1993 OK 19, ¶ 0, 848 P.2d 1146.

. See also, Matter of the Estate of Marriott, 1973 OK 85, ¶ 10, 515 P.2d 571 [Supplemental opinion on rehearing].

. Kincaid v. Black Angus Motel, Inc., 1999 OK 54, ¶ 23, 983 P.2d 1016; Hughey v. Grand River Dam Auth., 1995 OK 56, ¶ 9, 897 P.2d 1138. See also, Halliburton Oil Producing Co. v. Grothaus, 1998 OK 110, ¶ 11, 981 P.2d 1244 [A reviewing court may take notice only of that record which is before it.]; Frey v. Independence Fire & Casualty Co., 1985 OK 25, ¶ 7, 698 P.2d 17.