Court Opinion

ID: 9796600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:00:39.418614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:39.730091
License: Public Domain

WATT, J.,
dissenting:
' 1 I dissent both from today's opinion and from the proposed rule change. Although the majority gives lip service to a plethora of reasons why an in camera interview serves the child's best interests, today, its opinion and proposed rule change may well sound the death knell to the utilization of this invaluable tool in future contested child custody matters. I also cannot agree with the immediate implementation of rule changes to causes in the appellate pipeline, altering the rules midstream in situations which involve the raw emotions of youth who have already been through the difficult rigors associated with placement proceedings.
T2 The opinion and rule change most certainly destroy the foundational principle for courts to conduct "in camera hearings" with the children which principle is also the basis for any custody decision, that being "the best interests of the child/children". Today's order not only robs the trial court of its discretion but also destroys the court's most vital tool in making decisions with regard to eusto-dy and that is obtaining the trust of the child or children. No longer can a judge promise that degree of protection of CONFIDENTIALITY so that a child will be more likely to be forthright and honest in expressing his or her views during these in camera proceedings.
38 I would adopt the rationale expressed in Myers v. Myers, 170 Ohio App.3d 486, 867 N.E.2d 848, where the court stated, as follows:
The requirement that the in camera interviews be recorded is designed to protect the due-process rights of the parents. The due-process protection is achieved in this context by sealing **856 the transeript of the in camera interview and making it available only to the court for review. This process allows appellate courts to review the in camera interview proceedings and ascertain their reasonableness, while still allowing the child to "feel safe and comfortable in expressing his opinions *161openly and honestly, without subjecting the child to any additional psychological trauma or loyalty conflicts."
[4 Accordingly, the sealing of the transcript and its inclusion in the record on appeal for review by the appellate courts in Oklahoma and using an abuse of discretion standard of review would protect the rights and best interests of the children while also affording the parents their right of due process.
15 By today's opinion and rule change, absent a complete waiver by all of the parties, "in camera hearings" as we have known them for decades will disappear.
T6 With today's pronouncement and rule change, either parent need only file their petition in error, pay the filing fee, and obtain and pay for a copy of the transeript and then be free to "beat the child/children over the head with it" for comments made to the judge in chambers. When there is no appeal, the proposed rule allows parents to request that the trial court release the tran-seript when no appeal is filed. No responsible parent would want access to hearing results unless they intended to, at some future date, use it against the child or a former spouse.
T7 Under today's order, thousands of children, at best, will leave the courthouses across this state with a bitter taste in their mouth for the judicial system or, at worst, result in mental or physical searring that will remain for the rest of their lifetime.
T8 Furthermore, instead of protecting the children and acting in their best interest, warring parents, consumed with bitterness for one another will now use their children as weapons in their domestic battle with the opposing spouse.
9 Finally, without any way to determine how many children will be affected by having their innermost thoughts revealed to warring parents, the majority imposes changes upon parents, children, and trial courts to which they had no notice when it makes the guidelines applicable "in all future cases including those already in the appellate pipeline." In the past, when rule changes have been imposed on the unsuspecting litigant, the rules have been made applicable in the cause and prospectively to all petitions for certiorari filed thirty (80) days after final publication in the Oklahoma Bar Journal.1
T 10 Accordingly, I dissent.

. Hough v. Leonard, 1993 OK 112, 867 P.2d 438.