Tulsa Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court Fall 1997 The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse Interests D. Marianne Brower Blair [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation D. M. Blair, The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse Interests, 33 Tulsa L. J. 177 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blair: The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse In TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 33 Fall 1997 Number 1 ARTICLES THE NEW OKLAHOMA ADOPTION CODE: A QUEST TO ACCOMMODATE DIVERSE INTERESTS* D. Marianne Brower Blairt I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 178 II. JURISDICTION, CHOICE OF LAW, AND RECOGNMON ............ 183 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction .......................... 183 1. Rationale ................................... 183 2. Bases for Jurisdiction .......................... 186 3. Pending Action in Another State ................... 191 4. Effect of Prior Custody Order ..................... 192 5. Relationship of § 7502-1.1 to Other Requirements of the Adop- tion Code, ICWA, and the PKPA .................. 195 B. PersonalJurisdiction and Venue ...................... 197 C. Choice of Law ................................... 198 * OKLA. STAT. tit. 10, § 7501-1.1 to 7511-1.5. t Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. B.A. 1974, DePauw University; J.D. 1980, Ohio State University. Member, Oklahoma Adoption Law Reform Committee, 1995-98. I would like to thank Louis Manuel Barrios, Lisa K. Gold, Patrick Hagestad, Scott Pawgan, and Heath- er Poole for the excellent research assistance they contributed to this article and to my work on the Adoption Law Reform Committee, and Sharon Miller for her assistance in the preparation of the manuscript I would also like to gratefully acknowledge Sherri Finik and Representative Russ Roach, Co-Chairs of the Adoption Law Reform Committee; Kathy Muckala, Staff Attorney for the Oklahoma House of Representatives; and John O'Connor, Jack Petty, Gary Taylor, Mark Morrison, Joe Crosthwait, Jane Morgan, Michael Nomura, Judge April Sellers-White, Judge Glenn D. Carter, Susan Work, and Professor Robert Spector, my colleagues on the Committee, who each contributed tremendous time, talent, and effort to the passage of the Oklahoma Adoption Code. Although this article benefits greatly from their insights, any errors contained herein are my own. Published by TU Law Digital Commons, 1997 1 Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 33 [1997], Iss. 1, Art. 12 TULSA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 33:177 D. Recognition of Sister State and Foreign Decrees ........... 200 Il. ADOPTION BY CONSENT, PERMANENT RELINQUISHMENT, OR WAIVER FOL- LOWING NOTICE FOR PLAN FOR ADOPTION .................. 202 A. Birth Mothers and Fathers of Children Born in Wedlock ..... 202 B. Putative Fathers ................................. 206 1. Consent or Relinquishment Prior to or After Birth ...... 206 2. Extrajudicial Consent ........................... 207 3. Notice of Plan for Adoption ...................... 208 C. Revocation ..................................... 212 IV. ADOPTION WITHOUT CONSENT AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ........................................... 215 A. Procedure ...................................... 215 1. Right to Notice ............................... 215 2. Hearings ................................... 220 B. Grounds ....................................... 225 V. THE ADOPTION PROCESS ............................... 229 A. Home Studies ................................... 229 1. Preplacement Home Study ....................... 229 2. Postplacement and Supplemental Home Studies ........ 232 B. Court Appointed Attorneys and Guardiansad Litem for the Child 233 C. Pleadings and Other Documents ...................... 235 D. Interlocutory and FinalizationProcedure ................ 236 E. Appeals and Direct and CollateralAttacks ............... 237 F. Best Interests Hearing ............................. 239 G. Costs and Expenses ............................... 242 1. Limitations on Expenses and Reporting .............. 242 2. Prohibition on Retention of Child by Hospital ......... 243 3. Tax Exemptions .............................. 244 VI. DISCLOSURE OF IDENTIFYING AND NONIDENTIFYING INFORMATION.. 245 A. Disclosure of Birth Certificates ....................... 246 B. Mutual Consent Voluntary Registry .................... 250 C. Confidential IntermediaryProgram .................... 253 D. Medical and Social History .......................... 257 1. Collection .................................. 261 2. Post-Decree Supplementation ..................... 266 3. Disclosure .................................. 268 VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 270 I. INTRODUCTION Adoption has a profound impact on many lives-the adoptees, their descen- dants, the members of their birth families, and the members of their adoptive families. Clearly the creation of new families can be a source of great joy for adoptive parents and relatives, stability and love for adoptees, and comfort and reassurance for birth families. Nevertheless, as an institution which both severs https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/12 2 Blair: The New Oklahoma Adoption Code: A Quest to Accommodate Diverse In 1997] NEW OKLAHOMA ADOPTION CODE and creates parental bonds, it can also be a source of grief, conflict, or longing for genealogical identity. For decades American legislators and courts have struggled to structure adoption law to serve the best interests of the children who will be adopted, while also protecting the rights of birth parents and recog- nizing the concerns of adoptive parents.! Even in adoptions that take place under the best of circumstances, the interests of those affected may ultimately conflict, as evidenced by the vociferous public debate which has escalated in recent decades over the post-adoption disclosure of information.2 Under the worst of circumstances, i.e., a contested adoption, these interests collide, often with tragic results.3 Perfect accommodation of the disparate interests of all adoptees, their descendants, their birth families, and their adoptive families may be as unattainable as was the dream of Don Quixote's quest.4 Oklahoma's new Adoption Code represents this state's most recent effort to address and balance the needs of all whose lives are affected by this important institution, and to achieve coherence in Oklahoma's adoption statutes. The Oklahoma Adoption Code recodifies and significantly revises Oklahoma's former adoption statutes. The Adoption Code was proposed by the Adoption Law Reform Committee (Committee), a committee created by the Oklahoma Legislature and composed of a legislator, judges, directors of adop- tion agencies, social workers, lawyers, and law professors, as well as a legisla- tive staff attorney who worked with the Committee. Over the course of two years, the Committee researched, conducted public meetings, and drafted the Adoption Code.6 The Code was enacted by the Legislature as House Bill 1241 and approved on June 10, 1997, with relatively few changes from the draft proposed by the Committee. Several overriding concerns dominated the Committee's work. The least controversial objective, but one vital to adoption 1. See generally JOEL D. TENNENBAUM, Introducing the Uniform Adoption Act, 30 FAM. L.Q. 333 (Summer 1996) (observing that the 1953 version of the Uniform Adoption Act and the 1971 revised version of the Uniform Adoption Act, both promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), were not widely adopted, and a Model State Adoption Act adopted by the American Bar Association's Family Law Section was not approved by the ABA House of Delegates); Joan Heifetz Hollinger, The Uniform Adoption Act: Reporter's Ruminations, 30 PAM. L.Q. 345, 345-351 (Summer 1996) (describing the bitter disagreements among the members of the 1994 Uniform Adoption Act drafting commit- tee and the full Commission); HoMER H. CLARK, JR., THE LAW OF DoMEsrTc RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 888 (2d ed. 1988) (commenting on the difficulty states have encountered in striking an appropriate balance between the rights of parents and the protection of children in establishing grounds for termination of parental rights). 2. See generally Promise Doe v. Sundquist, 106 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 1997) (suit by birth parents, adop- tive parents, and an adoption agency challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee's new disclosure statute that would permit the disclosure of identifying information regarding past as well as future adoptions.) For a more detailed discussion of the case, see infra, note 438. 3. See generally In re Doe, 638 N.E.2d 181 (111.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 994 (1994) (Baby Rich- ard); In re Clausen, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993), stay denied sub nom.; DeBoer ex rel. Darrow v. DeBoer, 509 U.S. 1301 (Stevens, J.), and stay denied, 509 U.S. 938 (1993) (Baby Jessica). 4. See MITCH LEIGH AND JOE DARION, THE IMPOssIBLE DREAM (from DALE WASsERMAN, MAN OF LA MANCHA, based upon IGUEL DE CERVANTES, DON QUIXOTE DE LA MANCHA (1605)). 5. See OKLA. STAT. tit. 10, §§ 7511-1.1