Bingham v. Bingham

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Oveerstreet

    78 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2003)   Cited 2 times
    In Overstreet, the statute at issue specifically provided that the termination of parental rights "shall not terminate the duty of either parent to support his or her minor child" until such time as the child is adopted. 78 P.3d at 952 n. 1. (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7006-1.3). Alabama's statutes have no language resembling the specific provisions of the statute discussed in Overstreet.

    The case does not discuss termination of parental rights, nor does it construe the statute at issue in this case. DHS also cites Bingham v. Bingham, 1981 OK CIV APP 26, 629 P.2d 1297, to support its position that a parent cannot by his own unilateral conduct, terminate a child's right to parental support. The divorce decree in that case approved a provision that excused an adoptive father from payment of child support and additionally provided that he was without visitation rights.

  2. Holleyman v. Holleyman

    2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003)   Cited 25 times
    Explaining that Rule 1.14 regulates the enforcement procedure of 12 O.S. § 978 and these provisions mandate the prevailing party's recovery of taxable costs including court reporter expenses at the conclusion of appellate litigation

    1998 OK 18, 955 P.2d 722. 1981 OK CIV APP 26, ¶ 19, 629 P.2d 1297, 1301.Id.

  3. State Dept. of Human Services v. T.D.G

    1993 OK 26 (Okla. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that contract between mother and putative father was void against public policy and thus did not prevent state from establishing support obligations

    Parkey v. Parkey, 371 P.2d 711, 714 (Okla. 1962); Donahoe v. Alcorn, 188 Okla. 305, 108 P.2d 786, 789 (1940); Bynum v. Bynum, 184 Okla. 36, 84 P.2d 424, 427 (1938); Ahrens v. Ahrens, 67 Okla. 147, 169 P. 486-87 (1917); Bingham v. Bingham, 629 P.2d 1297, 1299 (Okla. 1981); Raczynski v. Raczynski, 558 P.2d 425, 429 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976).

  4. In re M.B., JR

    232 P.3d 927 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 11 We do find merit to Mother's argument that the trial court's order is deficient because it failed to find the termination was in the children's best interests. Bingham v. Bingham, 1981 OK CIV APP 26,¶ 13, 629 P.2d 1297, 1300. However, because clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's determination to terminate Mother's parental rights, we vacate the trial court's order and remand this matter to the trial court for the sole purpose of securing a proper order.

  5. In re E.G

    231 P.3d 785 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    "Parental rights . . . may only be terminated or impaired upon a clear finding by the court after an evidentiary hearing that it is, in fact, in the best interests of the children to enter such an order." Bingham v. Bingham, 1981 OK CIV APP 26, 113, 629 P.2d 1297, 1300. Given the lack of an express finding in the Order that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests, the Order must be remanded to the trial court, not for a new trial, but with instructions for the trial court to enter a proper final order correcting this deficiency.

  6. Harbuck v. State

    956 P.2d 921 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997)

    In the limited circumstances of this case, we hold that where no support for minor children is provided in the divorce decree, the non-custodial parent nevertheless has a continuing obligation to support his minor children and no change of circumstance need be shown to invoke Father's support obligation. See also, e.g., Bingham v. Bingham, 1981 OK CIV APP 26, 629 P.2d 1297. To hold otherwise would be to allow parents a means by which to circumvent their obligation to support their children.

  7. Matter of Estate of Baxter

    827 P.2d 184 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992)   Cited 9 times

    There is no legal distinction to be drawn between natural born children and adopted children once the adoption process is complete. Bingham v. Bingham, 629 P.2d 1297 (Okla.App. 1981). Finding Appellees are the legally adopted children of Testator and that their right of inheritance from their adoptive father remains intact, the determination of the trial court that Appellees are Testator's heirs at law and the appointment of Jimmy Carl Baxter as administrator with will annexed is not against the clear weight of the evidence and is hereby affirmed.

  8. HURT v. NOBLE

    817 P.2d 744 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times

    There is no legal distinction to be drawn between natural born children and adopted children once the adoption process is complete. Bingham v. Bingham, 629 P.2d 1297 (Okla.App. 1981). From the date of the final decree of adoption, the adopted child is entitled to inherit real property from the adoptive parents in accordance with the statutes of descent and distribution.