THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 12 | 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. correspondence and unreasonably long lists of collateral witnesses. It can also manifest in a parent’s discontent with a GAL’s findings and/or recommendations becoming the basis for terminating payment to the GAL, leading to a GAL’s release from the case before a decision on the merits can ever be issued and leaving the original void of opportunity for the child’s best interests and/or preference to be heard. 12 O.S. §2803.3 There is now the possibility that 12 O.S. §2803.3 will compound these challenges in expediting the effect of statements made nearly automatically admissible by 12 O.S. §2803.3, even before a finding of domestic violence can be made. Protective order matters may, but are not required to, be consolidated into domestic matters.37 While they often are, emergency orders are frequently entered prior to that consolidation occurring, and it can be weeks or months before the case makes it to the domestic judge’s courtroom. Now, with 12 O.S. §2803.3 coming into effect, statements classified as those purporting “to narrate, describe, report, or explain an incident or incidents of domestic abuse”38 can be entered into evidence in an emergency protective order proceeding (or a permanent one if the case is not consolidated). The result is that these statements become part of an official court record before the trier of fact in the domestic case has had any opportunity to weigh it with other evidence or gauge the credibility of the party making such statements, despite being the judge making a best interest determination. There is a risk that filing of protective order actions will be made not only by victims in need of legal protections and safety, but also by parents seeking advantage in domestic cases and a way to deprive the other parent or guardian of custodial rights and privileges. Parents have already tried to leverage the relaxation of evidence rules in family matters when faced with in camera interviews and GALs. Practitioners should be aware that parents may try to take advantage of this relaxation of evidence rules with regard to protective orders as well, necessarily impacting family law proceedings as a whole. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Exceptions to hearsay, though regularly invoked and applied in family proceedings affecting children, remain cause for concern about due process rights under the 14th Amendment.39 As seen above, Oklahoma courts have already begun to consider how to balance the relevant rights and interests in the context of in camera interviews. Practitioners should expect that this same balancing will need to occur if 12 O.S. §2803.3 finds its way, as has been predicted, into family proceedings. In this context, procedural due process rights as well as the substantive due process right of the parents to care and control of children are balanced against the government’s interest in the welfare of children. U.S. courts tend not to entertain arguments about children’s constitutional rights, instead vesting these rights exclusively in the children’s parents.40 Parental Rights The 14th Amendment protects both a parents’ procedural due process rights and their substantive due process right to the custody, care, and control of their children. This right was first articulated in Meyer and Pierce,41 and has been more recently reaffirmed in decisions like Troxel, which pointed to a long line of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has “recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”42 Fundamental rights trigger strict scrutiny.43 This does not
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==