THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 10 | AUGUST 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. aims to inform practitioners of the existing balance of rights and interests, as well as to anticipate how changes like 12 O.S. §2803.3 could present new challenges that potentially disrupt that balance. OKLAHOMA EVIDENCE LAW Developments such as 12 O.S. §2803.3 must be understood in the broader context of Oklahoma evidence law, and specifically how Oklahoma evidence law intersects with family law. Across the U.S., family courts’ approach to hearsay in proceedings affecting children is far more flexible than the approach of courts in other contexts, such as criminal proceedings.8 One of the driving forces behind the relaxation of evidence rules in family matters is the desire to hear from children without including them in the proceedings. Rarely does a family court call the affected child to give evidence.9 Instead, hearsay is often admitted through a range of general hearsay exceptions, most notably the exceptions for present sense impressions, excited utterances, state of mind, statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, and recorded recollections.10 Hearsay statements, from children as well as other sources, often arrive in front of family courts via in camera interviews or via the admission of reports by guardians ad litem.11 Both methods have long been used in Oklahoma to facilitate the court’s assessment of children’s experiences and preferences. Evidence of domestic abuse of the sort admitted pursuant to 12 O.S. §2803.1 may find their way into admission in family law cases both in the courtroom and by way of these mechanisms. In Camera Interviews In camera interviews – that is, private sessions where the judge asks questions of a child – have become the mechanism by which children may testify directly when expressing a preference as to custody and/or visitation.12 No specific age is set by statute. Instead, it is left to the judge’s discretion whether the child will be permitted to give evidence in this manner. Because they are not parties to the litigation, these statements are not subject to characterization as non-hearsay, as defined by the Oklahoma Evidence Code.13 Not only are family courts allowed to give weight to evidence gathered in this manner, but they are also allowed to conduct in camera interviews in chambers without the parents or their attorneys present.14 In Hogue v. Hogue15, a mother challenged, among other things, the weight placed upon her son’s testimony and the exclusion of the parties’ attorneys from the in camera testimony of the parties’ son.16 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that the preference of the parties’ son was intelligent and articulate and was carefully considered by the trial court.17 The appellate court further found the trial court was justified in excluding the parties’ attorneys based on the trial court’s belief the child would be more open and candid without the attorneys present.18 Parents may not only be excluded from the in camera interviews, but they may also be denied later access to the interview transcript. In Ynclan v. Woodward, the court set forth guidelines for trial court’s interviews of children in camera and held that, absent an appeal by either party, due process does not require either parent to have access to the transcript.19 The Court of Civil Appeals enumerated at length the purposes of conducting the in camera interview in private, including but not limited to elimination of the harm to a child from exposure to direct and cross examination, enhanced candor and minimization of trauma.20 Relevant to this article, the court also addressed the balance of the concepts of the adversarial system and the due process rights of parents against the welfare of the child and the court’s interest in hearing the child.21 Interestingly, the Court of Civil Appeals also addresses a child’s freedom of expression and their right to a degree of privacy that preserves that freedom.22 In a concurring opinion, Justice Taylor and Justice Opala further emphasized the preservation of basic fundamental due process in child custody proceedings, both for children and parents.23 Notably, the focus of the concurring opinion rests on the preliminary requirement of the trial court to decide whether the best interests of the child are served by an in camera interview and, upon objection by a parent, the conducting of a full hearing where objections are heard a clear ruling is made and reflected in the appellate record.24 In contrast, a dissent by Justice Watt pointed to what he perceived to be a major error in the majority’s ruling that the transcripts will be made available to parents upon a mere intent to appeal.25 Justice Watt reasoned that the transcripts should remain sealed and subject to viewing only by the trial court and the appellate court, ensuring due process for parents but not jeopardizing the trust and well-being of children.26 He further stated that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==