In re Schultz

• Decision Date: 18 January 2017
• Docket Number: No. 114,452,114,452
• Citation: 389 P.3d 322
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF Bruce Dean SCHULTZ to Jared Bruce, Petitioners/appellants.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

389 P.3d 322

In the MATTER OF the TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF Bruce Dean SCHULTZ to Jared Bruce, Petitioners/appellants.

No. 114,452

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Filed January 18, 2017

Michael C. Redman, Neuens Mitchell Bonds, PLLC, Tulsa, OK, for Petitioners/Appellants.

Winchester, J.

¶ 1 The issue in this case is whether the trial court lacked authority to vacate an adult adoption where both parties sought the termination of parental rights as competent adults. The trial court opined that because the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S. 2011, § 7507–1.1, neither authorizes nor prohibits the vacation of adult adoptions, it lacked authority to vacate the existing order. Appellants appealed to this Court directly, and we retained the first impression matter.

¶ 2 Based on the Legislature's provisions in granting adult adoptions, parallel provisions for vacating adoptions of minor children, and the overall intent of the Adoption Code, we find error warranting remand to the trial court to rehear Appellants' petition. As the trial court has already found consent and competency of the parties, upon remand it need only conduct a best-interest determination in deciding the matter. With neither bad faith nor fraudulent motive of the parties, we find no evidence to suggest that the termination of rights herein would not serve their best interests.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 In June 2005, Tulsa County entered a Decree of Adoption between Appellants Bruce Dean Schultz and Jared Bruce, both adults at the time of the adoption. Pursuant to the decree, Appellants assumed all legal and relational implications of the adoption over the next ten years. In July 2015, however, Appellants mutually agreed that terminating the parent-child relationship was in their best interests. Accordingly, they jointly filed a petition in Tulsa County to vacate the existing order. At the hearing, the trial court suggested that termination of the relationship would serve the best interests of the parties. However, since the Oklahoma Adoption Code does not address the vacation of adult adoptions, the trial court ultimately ruled that it lacked authority to vacate the existing order regardless of the parties' interests.

¶ 4 The trial court recognized that while the Adoption Code does not expressly authorize the vacation of adult adoptions, it remains equally silent as to prohibiting such an action. Further, the trial court emphasized that "no minor children [were] involved" in the adult adoption, and the motive of the parties was "made in good faith and not to defraud any third party." Pointing to its lack of authority to interpret otherwise, the trial court encouraged Appellants to appeal to seek this Court's interpretation of the statute. We retained the matter.

389 P.3d 324

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 In matters regarding adoption, the best interest of the adoptee, usually a minor child, provides a paramount consideration. Daniel v. Daniel , 2001 OK 117, ¶ 21, 42 P.3d 863, 871. When reviewing the trial court's determination of parental rights, this Court evaluates for an abuse of discretion. Scocos v. Scocos , 2016 OK 36, ¶ 5, 369 P.3d 1068, 1070. "The term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule" and a judgment made "with a regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances." Stewart v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1946 OK 132, ¶ 14, 196 Okla. 675, 168 P.2d 125, 128. What constitutes an "abuse of discretion" depends upon the circumstances surrounding each case. Id. at ¶ 15, 168 P.2d at 129. We give deference to the trial court in its assessment of the facts, as it "is better able to determine controversial evidence by its observation of the parties, the witnesses and their demeanor." Hoedebeck v. Hoedebeck , 1997 OK CIV APP 69, ¶ 10, 948 P.2d 1240, 1243.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6 Before today, this Court has not addressed the adult adoptions section of the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S. 2011, § 7507–1.1. This single-paragraph section delineates the circumstances under which a district court may grant an adult adoption, yet remains silent as to whether the court may subsequently vacate such a decree. The statute's brevity regarding adults is not surprising, as the Adoption Code is concerned primarily with ensuring the best interests of children in adoption. 10 O.S. 2011, 7501–1.2(A)(1). Indeed, the Adoption Code addresses at length the circumstances under which a district court may and shall terminate parental rights in adoptions of minor children. See 10 O.S. 2011, §§ 7505–4.1 –4.3.

¶ 7 The trial court concluded that absent a statutory authorization or prohibition, it remained powerless to determine the best interests of the parties in the existing adoption. Under this reasoning, the statute's silence, in effect, would require the perpetuation of adult adoptions in even the most extreme of circumstances, even where the termination of rights would serve the best interests of the parties. As this outcome would contravene the overall purpose of the Adoption Code as well as the Legislature's recognition of termination in adoptions of...