AUGUST 2026 | 15 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 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. 21. Id. ¶14, 16, ¶20. 22. Id. at ¶23. 23. Id., Opala and Taylor, JJ. concurring at ¶1. 24. Id. at ¶4-5. 25. Id., Watt, J. dissenting at ¶2. 26. Id. at ¶3-4. 27. Id. at ¶8. 28. 2014 OK CIV APP 9, 317 P.3d 230. 29. 1968 OK 77, 442 P.2d 482. 30. 1996 OK CIV APP 134, 931 P.2d 86. 31. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §113(4). 32. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §107.3. 33. Id. 34. Id. 35. Id. 36. Id. 37. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §60.2. 38. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §2803.3. 39. Robert G. Spector and Virginia D. Henson, Oklahoma Family Law, the Handbook, 407 (2025-2026). 40. David D. Meyer, “The Modest Promise of Children’s Relationship Rights,” 11 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 1117 (2003) (“Adults now have well-established constitutional rights to establish and maintain vital family relationships. Children do not.”); Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 130 (1989) (“We have never had occasion to decide whether a child has a liberty interest, symmetrical with that of her parent, in maintaining her filial relationship. We need not do so here[.]”). Framing this solely as within the government’s discretion due to the parens patriae power of the state to regulate on behalf of children, as opposed required to respect and ensure the rights of children, contrast with the approach of other countries. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which most nationstates other than the U.S. are party, provides in Article 12 that children have a right to be heard “in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.” Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 12, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3. 41. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925). 42. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). 43. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 503–04 (1965) (White, J., concurring). 44. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). 45. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 447 n.7 (1972) 46. Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 57 (1890). 47. Douglas E. Abrams, A Very Special Place in Life: The History of Juvenile Justice in Missouri, 4–6 (2003). 48. “Developments in the Law: The Constitution and the Family,” 93 Harvard Law Review, 1156, 1199 n.14 (1980). 49. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §109(A). 50. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §113. 51. Bishop v. Benear, 1928 OK 553, ¶ 24, 132 Okla. 116, 270 P. 569, 572. 52. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §109.3. 53. Patrick Parkinson and Judy Cashmore, “The Voice of A Child in Family Law Disputes,” 2, 14 (2008); Robert G. Spector and Virginia D. Henson, Oklahoma Family Law: The Handbook (2025-2026). 54. Nancy Schleifer, “Might versus Fright: The Confrontation Clause and the Search for Truth in the Child Abuse Family Court Case,” 16 Nova Law Review 783, 788–89 (1992). 55. Jaqueline Clarke, “Do I Have A Voice - An Empirical Analysis of Children’s Voices in Michigan Custody Litigation,” 47 Family Law Quarterly, 457, 457 (2013). 56. Jaqueline Clarke, “Do I Have A Voice - An Empirical Analysis of Children’s Voices in Michigan Custody Litigation,” 47 Family Law Quarterly, 457, 457 (2013). 57. Steven N. Peskind, Evidentiary Opportunities: Applicability of the Hearsay Rules in Child Custody Proceedings, 25 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 375, 397 (2013); Linda D. Elrod, “Hearsay and Custody: The Twice Told Story,” 21 Family Law Quarterly 169, 170 n.7 (1987) (“With the exception of Texas, as custody cases are tried to the court without a jury.”). 58. Steven N. Peskind, “Evidentiary Opportunities: Applicability of the Hearsay Rules in Child Custody Proceedings,” 25 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 375, 397 (2013); Mark Hardin, “Child Protection Cases in a Unified Family Court,” 32 Family Law Quarterly. 147, 179 (1988). 59. John E. B. Myers, “Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Visitation Litigation: Recommendations for Improved Fact Finding and Child Protection,” 28 [[SC]] Journal of Family Law. [[/SC]] 1, 6 (1989-1990). 60. See, e.g., Dale Margolin Cecka, “Don’t Just Ask the Kids: Toward a More Deliberate Approach to Child Advocacy,” 85 Maryland Law Review. 696, 722–23 (2026). 61. Timothy M. Tippins & Lauren K. DeLuca, “The Custody Evaluator Meets Hearsay: A StarCrossed Romance,” 30 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 521, 558 (2018). 62. Virginia D. Henson, Margaret A. East and Mahak H. Merchant, “Admissible at What Cost? Senate Bill 607 and Its Constitutional Concerns,” 97 Oklahoma Bar Journal 22 (2026). 63. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §2803.1. 64. 2023 OK CR 12, ¶15, 533 P.3d 354, 360. 65. 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 66. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §2803.1(B). We want to feature your work on “The Back Page” of the Oklahoma Bar Journal! All entries must relate to the practice of law and may include articles, reflections or other insights. Poetry, photography and artwork connected to the legal profession are also welcome. Email submissions of about 500 words or high-resolution images to OBA Communications Director Lori Rasmussen at lorir@okbar.org. Your Stories. Your Insights. Your Back Page.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==