DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES v. COLDWATER

OSCN Found Document:DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES v. COLDWATER

OSCN navigation

Home

Courts

Court Dockets

Legal Research

Calendar

Help

Previous Case

Top Of Index

This Point in Index

Citationize

Next Case

Print Only

DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES v. COLDWATER

2014 OK CIV APP 56

Case Number: 110933

Decided: 05/16/2014

Mandate Issued: 06/11/2014

DIVISION III

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION III

Cite as: 2014 OK CIV APP 56 , __ P.3d __

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT

SERVICES, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

LAFE C. COLDWATER,

Defendant/Appellee,

and

ERICA ANN BUTLER, Custodian/Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GARFIELD COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE DENNIS W. HLADIK, JUDGE

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART

AND REMANDED FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Bruce Hammer, Oklahoma Child Support Services, Enid, Oklahoma, for

Plaintiff/Appellee,

Jon R. Ford, Enid, Oklahoma, for

Defendant/Appellee,

Randy J. Long, Terri K. Blakley, FIELD, TROJAN, LONG

& CLAYPOLE, P.C., Enid, Oklahoma, for Custodian/Appellant.

Bay Mitchell, Judge:

¶1 Custodian/Appellant Erica Ann Butler 1 appeals the decision of the trial

court ordering Defendant/Appellee Lafe Coldwater to pay $400 per month in child

support, denying her request for child support arrearages, and awarding legal

custody of C.M.B., the minor child, to Defendant/Appellee. 2 Custodian/Appellant Erica Ann

Butler ("Mother") is the natural mother of C.M.B., a minor child born

out-of-wedlock. After the birth of the child, a paternity test determined

Defendant/Appellee Lafe Coldwater ("Father") was the father of C.M.B., and Child

Support Services filed an administrative action against Father to establish

paternity and support obligations.

¶2 Prior to the birth of the child, Mother and Father had a sexual

relationship, but were not a couple in a traditional sense. Mother lived with

her boyfriend at the time, Joshua Guidroz. During her pregnancy, Mother told

Father either he or Mr. Guidroz could be the father of the unborn child. C.M.B.

was born December 1, 2008, and Mr. Guidroz was listed as the child's father on

the birth certificate. Mother later filed a paternity action against Mr.

Guidroz, but a paternity test revealed Mr. Guidroz was not C.M.B.'s father.

Through an administrative proceeding initiated by Child Support Services, Father

was ordered to take a paternity test in May 2010. Father was informed sometime

in August or September 2010 that he was the biological father of C.M.B. Pursuant

to an order entered by the Office of Administrative Hearings: Child Support,

Father was ordered to pay child support to Mother beginning October 1, 2010.

Father was not ordered to pay any back child support to Mother for the time

period from C.M.B.'s birth through September 2010. Mother did not appeal this

administrative order to the district court, and it was docketed in district

court pursuant to 56 O.S. 2011

§237.10. Father filed a petition for joint custody on October 15, 2010 using

the same district court case number assigned to the docketed administrative

order. 3

¶3 The parties agree Mother was the sole care giver for C.M.B. from the time

of birth until September 2010 (shortly after Father was informed he was the

child's biological father) when Father began having some visitation with the

child. After a temporary order hearing March 3, 2011, the trial court awarded

Mother legal and physical custody of C.M.B. subject to Father's visitation on

six (6) overnight visits out of every fourteen (14) days. The parties continued

this custody arrangement until a trial on the merits was held January 12 and 20,

2012. 4

¶4 Testimony at trial showed the parties generally agreed the physical

custody arrangement was working well, but Mother and Father also agreed they had

problems communicating with each other. Father felt that Mother made unilateral

decisions regarding the minor child without consulting him while Mother felt

like Father unnecessarily questioned her parenting skills. Both parents agreed

it was in C.M.B.'s best interest if they were both involved in her life.

¶5 A guardian ad litem ("GAL") was appointed in this case. She

presented her report at trial and also testified. Her initial recommendation was

that joint custody would not work due to the lack of communication between

Mother and Father. She recommended that Father be given legal custody of C.M.B.

with each parent having equal physical custody. She based this decision on

Father's willingness to work with Mother in parenting C.M.B. and his willingness

to maintain C.M.B.'s relationship with her maternal family. The GAL also noted

Mother's apparent hostility to having Father involved in C.M.B.'s life because

the two fathers of her two other daughters were in no way involved in their

lives. After hearing all of the evidence at trial, the GAL changed her

recommendation and decided joint legal custody could work if Mother and Father

could communicate with each other. The GAL testified that both Mother and Father

were capable parents who had C.M.B.'s best interests in mind. At the conclusion

of all the testimony and evidence, including a home study of Mother's house

which found Mother's home to be safe, clean, and appropriate, the trial court

awarded legal custody to Father but granted the parties equal physical custody

of C.M.B. On appeal Mother argues the record does not support the trial court's

decision to award legal custody to Father.

¶6 The trial court's order also deviated from the child support guidelines by

reducing Father's obligation to Mother from the amount calculated by the

guidelines of $661.29 per month to $400 per month. Testimony showed Mother works

as a physical therapy assistant making approximately $9.00 per hour. Father has

a high paying job with an oil field services company. The trial court imputed

income to him of approximately $9,000 per month. 5 To support this deviation, the trial

court's order stated:

Based on the parties' current income, a monthly credit of $800 that is

attributed to Mom supporting her two (2) older children, and the arguments

of counsel, Dad, as Obligor would normally pay to Mom a monthly child

support payment of $661.29 based on the Child Support Computation

Guideline . . .; however, the Court is deviating from the Child

Support Computation and is ordering Dad to pay Mom monthly child support

in the amount of $400.00 per month.

At trial Father testified he could more easily afford to send C.M.B. to

private Montessori school if his child support obligations were reduced. On

appeal Mother's second proposition is that the trial court failed to comply with

the mandate set forth in 43 O.S.

2011 §118H(B) requiring the trial court to justify any deviation with

specific findings that such deviation is in the best interests of the minor

child and the amount of support under the guidelines is "unjust or inappropriate

under the circumstances." Father argues the record supports the deviation even

if the specific findings were not included in the trial court's order. 6

¶7 In her answer to Father's petition for joint custody, Mother requested a

judgment be entered representing the amount of child support Father owed from

the time of C.M.B.'s birth in December 2008 through the time he began paying

child support in October 2010. At trial Father argued, and the trial court

agreed, Mother's claim was barred by res judicata because the matter had

been settled in the administrative proceeding where Father argued Mother waived

her right to any child support arrearages. Mother argues the record does not

firmly establish the matter was litigated in administrative court and, even if

it was, she did not knowingly waive her right to child support arrearages as she

was unrepresented by counsel at the administrative level. Mother's third

appellate argument is that the trial court erred in the denial of her request

for payment for child support arrearages.

LEGAL CUSTODY OF C.M.B.

¶8 "On appeal, this Court will not disturb the trial court's judgment

regarding custody absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the decision

is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence." Daniel v. Daniel , 2001 OK 117, ¶21 , 42 P.3d 863 . The burden is on the

appealing party to show that the decision is "erroneous and contrary to the

child's best interests." Id. "Absent such a showing, the trial court's

determinations are presumptively correct." Shaw v. Hoedebeck , 1997 OK CIV APP 69, ¶11 , 948 P.2d 1240 (citing Carpenter

v. Carpenter , 1982 OK 38 , 645 P.2d 476 ). We give deference to

the trial court in reviewing custody decisions because it "is better able to

determine controversial evidence by its observation of the parties, the

witnesses and their demeanor." Hoedebeck, 1997 OK CIV APP 69, ¶10 .

¶9 Mother argues the trial court awarded Father legal custody of C.M.B. to

avoid having to require Father to pay child support to Mother and despite the

fact he ignored his paternal obligations until he was required to submit to a

paternity test per court order. Mother insists there was nothing in the record

to show it was in C.M.B.'s best interests that Father be granted legal

custody.

¶10 We disagree with Mother's interpretation of the facts and record. First,

the trial court ordered Father to pay child support negating Mother's first

argument. Second, the record does not show Father ignored his paternal

obligations until ordered to submit to a paternity test. Rather, Father had

little reason to suspect he was the father of C.M.B. even after Mother told him

it was a possibility. Mother had been living with another man around the time of

conception. This man was listed as the father on the birth certificate and a

paternity suit had also been filed against him. We recognize there is no dispute

that Father was not involved in C.M.B.'s life until she was approximately

eighteen (18) months old, but once Father confirmed his paternity of C.M.B., by

all accounts he became an active and involved parent.

¶11 Our review of the record shows the trial court placed great weight on its

belief that Father was the best party to follow court orders and encourage a

relationship with the other parent when deciding to grant legal custody to

Father. Given our duty to defer to the trial court's consideration of witnesses

and evidence, we cannot say this decision was clearly contrary to the weight of

the evidence. We affirm the trial court's award of legal custody to Father.

CHILD SUPPORT DEVIATION

¶12 Oklahoma law provides for a rebuttable presumption that the amount of

child support calculated by the child support guidelines is the correct amount

of child support to be awarded. 43

O.S. 2011 §118(A). Section 118H(B) provides the trial court "may deviate"

from the amount of support indicated by the guidelines "if the deviation is in

the best interests of the child and the amount of support so indicated is unjust

or inappropriate under the circumstances." Should the trial court deviate from

the child support guidelines, it is required to "make specific findings of fact

supporting such action." 43 O.S.

2011 §118H(C) ("[T]he court shall make specific findings of

fact supporting such action.) (Emphasis added.) The findings of fact must

include the following:

1. The reasons the court deviated from the presumptive amount of child

support that would have been paid pursuant to the guidelines,

2. The amount of child support that would have been required under the

guidelines if the presumptive amount had not been rebutted, and

3. A finding by the court that states how, in its determination:

a. the best interests of the child who is subject to the support

award determination are served by deviation from the presumptive

guideline amount, and

b. application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in

the particular case before the

tribunal.

43 O.S. 2011 §118H(C). Under

the child support guidelines, Father's child support obligation to Mother was

$661.29 per month. The trial court reduced this amount to $400.00 per month but

failed to make specific findings of fact justifying the deviation as required by

43 O.S. 2011 §118H(C). Thus,

this portion of the trial court's order must be VACATED and REMANDED for a

determination of whether such facts exist to support the deviation, and, if so,

to articulate them as required by statute. See Kingery v. Kingery , 2011 OK CIV APP 122, ¶¶16-20 , 270 P.3d 192 (reversing and

remanding a child support order which deviated from the guidelines for omission

of judge's signature and for not including factual findings explaining how the

child support obligation was derived).

CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

¶13 Mother's allegation the trial court erred by finding her claim for child

support arrearages was barred by res judicata depends on whether the

issue was or could have been litigated at the administrative level. 7 The doctrine of

res judicata , now commonly referred to as "claim preclusion," bars

relitigation of issues by parties or their privies which were or could have been

raised in a previous proceeding which resulted in a prior judgment on the

merits. 8

State ex rel. Moshe Tal v. City of Oklahoma City , 2002 OK 97, ¶20 , 61 P.3d 234 . "The party against

whom it is interposed . . . must have had a full and fair opportunity to

litigate the claim or critical issue." Id. "Oklahoma's jurisprudence has

foreshadowed a willingness to apply preclusion doctrine to final adjudicative

administrative decisions if appropriate and not subject to some

recognized exception." Feightner v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. , 2003 OK 20 ¶13 , 65 P.3d 624 (emphasis added). 9 See also

Dority v. Green Country Castings Corp. , 1986 OK 67 , 727 P.2d 1355 10 ;

Bostwick v. Atlas Iron Masters, Inc. , 1988 OK CIV APP 20 , 780 P.2d 1184 . 11 "[A] person who has once

actually administratively litigated his claim, fully and fairly. . .and lost,

may not then move to a different forum and successively litigate the same claim

or issue again outside the confines of normal judicial review of administrative

decisions." Feightner , 2003

OK 20, ¶18 .

¶14 Mother argues the issue was not litigated at the administrative level and

that she did not knowingly waive her right to child support arrearages because

she was not represented by counsel at the time. Thus, she argues, the doctrine

of claim preclusion cannot prevent her for making her claim at the district

court. However, Oklahoma law does not support the pro se exception Mother

argues. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as an attorney.

Funnell v. Jones, 1985 OK

73, ¶4 , 737 P.2d 105 . Further,

Oklahoma's statutory child support enforcement scheme shows Mother was given the

opportunity to litigate the issue of child support arrearages at the

administrative level. Failing to do so bars Mother from later making her claim

in district court.

¶15 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services ("DHS") is the state agency

responsible for administering the child support enforcement program for the

State of Oklahoma. 56 O.S. 2011 §§

237(A), 237.7(1). Oklahoma law gives DHS the authority to conduct child

support enforcement administrative proceedings through the Office of

Administrative Hearings: Child Support ("OAH"). 12 Id. at §237.7(3). Such

hearings are conducted before administrative law judges ("ALJ"). Id. at

§237.7(3). After evidence has been presented at an administrative hearing, the

ALJ shall enter a written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of

law as to each contested issue. Id. at §237.8. OAH is authorized to issue

orders detailing the current support obligation and past due support

obligations. See id. at §237A(A)(2). Final orders shall be appealable

directly to the district court in the same manner as provided in the Oklahoma

Administrative Procedures Act. Id. at §240.3(A)(1). See also 75

O.S. 2011 §§318-323. But see Dept. of Human Services v. Hernandez , 2003 OK CIV APP 35, ¶3 , 68 P.3d 229 . 13 Such administrative

orders shall be docketed in the district court and "shall be enforced by the

district court in the same manner as an order of the district court." 56 O.S. 2011 §237.10. 14 See

also Okla. Admin. Code §340:2-28-50 .

¶16 The administrative order in the record is a pre-printed form with

handwritten entries to complete the required information. The order confirms the

paternity of Father and orders him to pay child support in the amount of $756.25

per month starting October 2010. Paragraph 8 provides a blank space for a

judgment to be entered against Father for any past due support for the time

period preceding October 2010. The term "N/A" is entered in this space. Whether

this entry shows the issue was litigated before the administrative court and no

support was ordered or whether it shows the issue was not presented at the

administrative level is irrelevant. The issue could have been litigated

at the administrative hearing.

¶17 We see no reason why an analysis similar to that applied in

Feightner and Bostwick, supra, should not apply to the case at

bar. The administrative order entered by OAH addressed the issues of paternity

and support obligations and was thus a "final" order within the meaning of

§240.3(A)(1). 15 No other issues remained to be litigated between

the parties at the administrative level. See footnote 12, supra .

Because DHS was providing child support services to Mother, the claim was

appropriately pursued at the administrative level. 16 56 O.S. 2011 §237(B)(3). Mother had

the opportunity to request a judgment for prior support obligations at the

administrative level but either failed to present the issue or was otherwise

denied such a judgment. Mother did not appeal the administrative order to the

district court. 56 O.S. 2011

§240.3(A)(1). Once she failed to appeal, her right to a review of the issues

addressed by the administrative order ended. See 75 O.S. 2011 §§318, 323. Similar to

the proceedings in Feightner and Bostwick , the administrative

remedies available to Mother were not her only means of seeking relief, but once

she pursued administrative remedies through OAH, she was bound by those

procedures. See Feightner , 2003 OK 20, ¶¶17-19 ;

Bostwick , 1988 OK CIV APP

20, ¶¶8-9 .

¶18 Oklahoma's child support enforcement scheme does not provide a statutory

exception to giving OAH decisions preclusive effect. Rather, it establishes

procedures to appeal from an adverse administrative decision, 56 O.S. 2011 §240.3(A)(1), and

states such decisions "shall be enforced by the district court in the same

manner as an order of the district court." Id. at §237.10. These appeal

procedures were the appropriate avenue for Mother to pursue judicial review of

the denial of her claim for child support arrearages. See Feightner , 2003 OK 20, ¶18 . The doctrine of

claim preclusion, the purpose of which includes "conserv[ing] judicial resources

and prevent[ing] inconsistent decisions," id. at ¶15, prohibits Mother

from presenting the same issue in a different forum. Id. at ¶18. The

trial court correctly barred Mother from relitigating the issue of child support

arrearages in the district court action because the issue could have been

litigated at the administrative level.

¶19 Consistent with the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

consistent with this opinion.

BELL, P.J., and GOREE, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1 During

the proceedings below, Ms. Butler married and changed her last name to Norman.

For ease of reference, we used her previous last name of Butler in our case

caption.

2

Defendant/Appellee Lafe Coldwater also filed a counter-petition in error which

was later dismissed by the Supreme Court as untimely filed. Because the

counter-petition in error was dismissed, we have not referred to the parties as

counter-appellant or counter-appellee, respectively.

3 In

addition to requesting joint custody, Father's petition also asked the district

court to establish a visitation schedule and recalculate Father's child support

obligations.

4 Prior

to the January 2012 trial, Father obtained a default judgment after Mother

failed to answer his petition for joint custody which granted the parties joint

legal and physical custody of C.M.B., but designated Father as the final

decision maker should any disputes arise regarding the child. Mother then hired

counsel who had the judgment vacated. Mother answered Father's petition, and the

case proceeded to trial.

5 To

calculate Father's imputed income, the trial court considered his monthly salary

along with an average of past years' bonuses and stock payments. Father was

unable to calculate exactly the amount of bonus and stock payments he would have

each year but appears to have no disagreement with the amount of income the

trial court imputed to him. This was not one of the issues Father raised in his

counter-petition in error which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

6 In his

reply brief, Father contends the following facts support the trial court's

deviation: Mother's previous receipt of public assistance, the increased

household income due to Mother's marriage to Joshua Norman, free child care

provided by paternal grandparents, and the child's young age. However, our

review of the record shows these facts were not argued during the trial on the

merits.

7 The

question of whether claim preclusion applies can be a question of law or a mixed

question of law and fact. Feightner v. Bank of Okla. N.A. , 2003 OK 20, ¶3 , 65 P.3d 624 . "It is solely a

question of law if (1) the facts are undisputed, (2) the preclusion question can

be answered solely by reviewing the judgment put forward as the bar, or (3) the

preclusion determination can be made solely by inspection of the record of the

proceeding(s) culminating in the judgment put forward as the bar. [A]

deferential standard of review applies to resolutions of disputed facts when

supported by reasonable evidence; an independent judgment standard of review

applies to the ultimate conclusion that these facts do or do not trigger

preclusion." Id. (internal citations omitted).

8 We note

Father's petition requesting joint custody also asked the district court to

recalculate his support obligations. While the issue of current and ongoing

support obligations was addressed by the administrative order, the doctrine of

claim preclusion does not apply to this issue. Mother, Father, and DHS all

retain the ability to request modification of support obligations on a

prospective basis so long as the child is entitled to parental support. 43 O.S. 2011 §§112(E), 118I,

118.1(A).

9 "[O]ne

recognized exception is when there is a statutory intent or directive to the

contrary." Feightner , 2003 OK

20, ¶14 . The Feightner Court found no statutory exception existed in

the statutes providing for administrative hearings at the Oklahoma Department of

Labor. Id. at ¶¶17-19. The Court applied the preclusion doctrine to bar a

plaintiff from pursuing her claim for unpaid overtime compensation in a suit in

district court when the matter had been fully litigated and decided against her

favor at the administrative level. Id. at ¶¶12-19. The Court concluded

the administrative relief "was to be an alternative one in nature and . . . an

individual with a wage claim enforceable in both administrative and judicial

forums would not be mistakenly required to exhaust the former to gain access to

the latter." Id. at ¶17. "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is

normally a prerequisite for resort to the courts in matters involving

adjudicative administrative proceedings subject to the [Oklahoma Administrative

Procedures Act, 75 O.S. §250,

et seq. ]." Feightner , 2003 OK 20, ¶17 (internal citations

omitted).

10 In

addition to finding the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") did not preempt

aggrieved employees' state statutory retaliatory discharge claims, the Supreme

Court held the NLRA allowed aggrieved employees to recover cumulative and

supplemental remedies. Dority , 1986 OK 67 , ¶¶6-11 and 12-14. The

aggrieved employees were successful in their administrative claims before the

National Labor Relations Board. Id. at ¶12. The Supreme Court concluded

this prior administrative adjudication did not bar the employees' pursuit of

remedies in state court because the state court claims "[did] not disturb the

scheme of remedies affordable by the administrative tribunal." Id. at

¶13.

11 In

Bostwick , 1988 OK CIV APP

20, ¶2 , plaintiff suffered a work-related injury resulting in approximately

four months of medical leave. Plaintiff filed a worker's compensation claim

against his employer and was discharged from his position upon returning to

work. Id. Plaintiff filed an administrative claim for unemployment

benefits with the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission ("OESC") which denied

his claim concluding plaintiff was dismissed for cause. Id. at ¶3.

Plaintiff did not appeal the OESC's findings but later filed a retaliatory

discharge claim under the workers' compensation code in district court.

Id. The Court of Civil Appeals ("COCA") concluded the adverse OESC

administrative ruling did not bar his retaliatory discharge claim because the

remedies differed between the two. Id. at ¶5. "The remedy affording by

OESC [was] limited to receipt of unemployment benefits . . . and applie[d] where

employee is unemployed through no fault of his or her own." Id. However,

the remedy afforded by a successful retaliatory discharge claim "should be

viewed as collateral rather than incidental to claims for bodily injury or

unemployment benefits. Furthermore, recovery [for a retaliatory discharge claim]

is not barred where there is more than one reason for employee's discharge

[including dismissal for cause] so long as retaliatory motivations comprise a

significant factor in the decision to terminate." Id. Plaintiff was

allowed to pursue his retaliatory discharge claim but was bound by OESC's

findings of fact regarding the cause for his dismissal. Id. at ¶8.

"[S]ubject to adequate opportunity for administrative review, resolution of a

disputed issue of fact properly before the OESC should be allowed the same

effect as such finding in a judicial review would be entitled by statute."

Id. at ¶8. COCA noted administrative proceedings required procedural due

process but that "no particular form of procedure is dictated, and failure to

avail oneself of the full procedures provided by state law does not constitute

inadequacy of such procedures." Id. at ¶9.

12

Notably, OAH does not have jurisdiction to determine child custody. That duty

remains solely within the jurisdiction of the district courts. Compare 56 O.S. 2011 §§237(A), 237.7(3) and

75 O.S. 2011 §308a with 43 O.S. 2011 §551-201.

13 In

Hernandez , 2003 OK CIV APP

35, ¶1 , the putative father appealed an administrative order to the district

court which affirmed the administrative order establishing paternity of the

child but leaving unresolved the issue of support obligations even though DHS

had requested a child support order in its application to OAH. The putative

father then appealed the district court order to the Supreme Court. Id.

Once assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals ("COCA"), COCA found the trial court

had no jurisdiction to consider putative father's administrative appeal because

the order was not a final order within the meaning of 56 O.S. 2001 §240.3(A)(1) or 75 O.S. 2001 §318(A)(1). Id.

at ¶¶3-4. Because the administrative order did not address putative father's

support obligations, it did not resolve all the issues arising out of the

controversy between the parties depriving the district court of appellate

jurisdiction. Id. at ¶¶3-4.

14 The

plain reading of the statute requires the final administrative order to be filed

with the district court even when the aggrieved party appeals the administrative

order to district court. 56 O.S. 2011

§237.10 ("Administrative orders entered pursuant to this title shall be

docketed in the county of the underlying district court order, if

any.").

15

While OAH is authorized to enter orders addressing prior support obligations, no

statutory authority or case law mandates an administrative order do so in order

to be a final order within the meaning of §240.3(A)(1). However, the order must

address both paternity and, at the very least, current support obligations to be

a final order. Hernandez , 2003 OK CIV APP 35,

¶¶1-3 .

16 OAH

child support administrative proceedings are not exactly an alternative remedy

nor are they supplemental to or cumulative to using a judicial forum to

establish child support obligations. Rather, the two forums can be said to have

concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter. See Scungio v. Scungio ,

2012 OK 90, ¶11 , 291 P.3d 616 . See also 43 O.S. 2011 §112(E) (providing "any

child shall be entitled to support by the parents until the child reaches

eighteen (18) years of age"); 10

O.S. 2011 §7700-103 (authorizing both district and administrative courts to

adjudicate parentage under the Uniform Parentage Act, 10 O.S. 2011 §7700-101, et

seq. ). Mother's action against Father to establish paternity and support

obligations was pursued at the administrative level through DHS, but Mother

could also have pursued an action to establish paternity and support obligations

in district court.

Citationizer © Summary of Documents Citing This Document Cite

Name

Level

None Found.

Citationizer: Table of Authority Cite

Name

Level

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases

Cite Name Level

1988 OK CIV APP 20 , 780 P.2d 1184 , 60 OBJ 2865, Bostwick v. Atlas Iron Masters, Inc. Discussed at Length

2003 OK CIV APP 35 , 68 P.3d 229 , STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES v. HERNANDEZ Discussed at Length

2011 OK CIV APP 122 , 270 P.3d 192 , KINGERY v. KINGERY Discussed

1997 OK CIV APP 69 , 948 P.2d 1240 , 68 OBJ 3833, Shaw v. Hoedebeck Discussed at Length

Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases

Cite Name Level

1986 OK 67 , 727 P.2d 1355 , 57 OBJ 2690, Dority v. Green Country Castings Corp. Discussed

2001 OK 117 , 42 P.3d 863 , 72 OBJ 3708, DANIEL v. DANIEL Discussed

2002 OK 97 , 61 P.3d 234 , STATE ex rel. TAL v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY Discussed

2003 OK 20 , 65 P.3d 624 , FEIGHTNER v. BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A. Discussed at Length

2012 OK 90 , 291 P.3d 616 , SCUNGIO v. SCUNGIO Discussed

1982 OK 38 , 645 P.2d 476 , Carpenter v. Carpenter Discussed

1985 OK 73 , 737 P.2d 105 , Funnell v. Jones Discussed

Title 10. Children

Cite Name Level

10 O.S. 7700 -101, Short Title Cited

10 O.S. 7700 -103, Applicability and Effect of Act - Adjudication Authority Cited

Title 43. Marriage

Cite Name Level

43 O.S. 551 -201, Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction Cited

43 O.S. 118 , Child Support Guidelines Cited

43 O.S. 118H, Deviation from Child Support Guidelines Discussed at Length

43 O.S. 112 , Care, Custody, and Support of Minor Children Discussed

Title 56. Poor Persons

Cite Name Level

56 O.S. 237 , Support Collection, Parent Location, and Paternity Determination Services Discussed at Length

56 O.S. 237 .10, Docketing and Enforcement of Administrative Orders Discussed at Length

56 O.S. 240 .3, Appeal of Final Orders of the Office of Administrative Hearings Discussed at Length

Title 75. Statutes and Reports

Cite Name Level

75 O.S. 250 , Short Title Cited

75 O.S. 308a, Governing Provisions Cited

75 O.S. 318 , Judicial Review Discussed