" Petitioner relies upon the case of In re Greenback, 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733, 736, decided by this Court in 1952. In that case a citizen filed a petition in the county court, sitting as a Juvenile Court of Ottawa County, Oklahoma, alleging that she had personal knowledge of the neglected condition of two minor children who were residents of that county, and 5 and 3 years of age.
She takes the position that, since the court's previous order placing her child in the appellee's custody did not purport to terminate her parental rights, both under the early and latest statutes pertaining to dependent children, the court had such jurisdiction. We think In re Greenback, 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733, and Tit. 10 O.S. 1968 1969 Supp., § 1118 [ 10-1118], support her position. We also think she is correct in distinguishing the present case from In re Tindell, Okla., 292 P.2d 1022, and Markland v. State, Okla., 398 P.2d 810.
Thus, the Family and Children's Service, Inc., being a private agency, the trial court correctly construed 20 O.S. 1961, Sec. 823 in holding that the juvenile court's order could be modified at anytime. Authority for such argument presumably is found in the case of In Re Greenback, 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733. Examination of that decision will disclose that it is distinguishable upon the facts, and does not extend support to respondent's argument. The order in that case fixed custody and expressly provided custody should be retained until the further order of the court.
We do note, however, that if the trial court, upon a preliminary inquiry, does determine the prior order of February 24, 1961, to constitute an adjudication that the children are dependent and neglected as distinguished from a mere interlocutory order affecting temporary disposition of custody, the present proceeding should be treated as one for restoration of parental rights upon a change of conditions. See In re Greenback (Greenback v. Dixon), 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733. On the other hand, should the trial court entertain the view upon such inquiry that all prior orders entered in this proceeding were merely interlocutory and no adjudication of dependency had been made until the decree of January 18, 1962, was rendered, appellants would be entitled to a trial by jury under the provisions of 10 O.S. 1961 § 102[ 10-102]. Montgomery v. Moore, Okla., 292 P.2d 1040, 1042.
Section 114, supra, provides the Act should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of the Act. See In re Greenback, 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733, 734. The purport of that Act is the rehabilitation of a delinquent child, as defined therein, together with the care and protection of dependent and neglected children as well as delinquent children.
In a number of cases we have considered the right to determine the question of a dependent and neglected child under 10 O.S. 1951 §§ 101-114[10-101-114] [ 10-101] [ 10-114]. Among these cases are: In re Greenback (Greenback v. Dixon), 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733; and In re Tindell, Okla., 292 P.2d 1022. Also in this connection see, Ex parte Parker, 195 Okla. 224, 156 P.2d 584. We have found no case in which it has been held that a child may be declared a dependent and neglected child where the mother has the custody of the child and the father has failed to comply with an order made by the court to pay child support.
The Tipton Home contends that since the County Court, sitting as a juvenile court, entered an order depriving the natural parent of the care and custody of dependent and neglected children, the court is without authority, unless it reserves the power to alter or amend such order, or jurisdiction to vacate such an order after it has become final. Both parties cite In re Greenback, 207 Okla. 30, 246 P.2d 733, and the later case of In re Tindell, Okla., 292 P.2d 1022. As pointed out in the Tindell decision an entirely different state of facts was presented in the Greenback case, supra. In that case the court had found certain children to be neglected and dependent children and took them from the custody of their mother.