We hold that: 1) in accord with State ex ret. Dept. of Institutions, Social Rehabilitative Serv. v. Griffis, 1975 OK 164, ¶ 25, 545 P.2d 763, 83 A.L.R.3d 363, the grant of authority to the Department to consent to the adoption of a child pursuant to 10 O.S.2001 § 7003-5.5(H)(3) does not divest the trial court's child in an adoption proceeding; and 2) Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, 829 P.2d 34 teaches that the trial court erred in its refusal to grant the relatives a new trial when the new evidence produced concerned the material issue of the child's best interests and where the evidence, if uncontroverted, admittedly would change the original adoption determination. These determinations are dispositive or render moot the issues raised in the companion cause.
" Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, 1981 OK 89, ¶ 1, 632 P.2d 393. Appellate courts "are not bound by the trial court's [jurisdictional] findings but must independently judge the basis for exercising jurisdiction." Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, ¶ 7, 829 P.2d 34, 37 (finding trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJA[repealed 1998]). Analysis
" Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge , 1981 OK 89, ¶ 1, 632 P.2d 393. Appellate courts "are not bound by the trial court's [jurisdictional] findings but must independently judge the basis for exercising jurisdiction." Joliff v. Joliff , 1992 OK 38, ¶ 7, 829 P.2d 34, 37 (finding trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJA[repealed 1998] ).Analysis
Having reviewed the record submitted, we find no evidence whatsoever to establish either Child's significant connection with Oklahoma beyond Child's limited presence during two visitation periods, or the availability of substantial evidence concerning Child's past and future care, education, and safety in Oklahoma, Child having lived with Mother in Colorado or Utah since birth. See, Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, ¶ 9, 829 P.2d 34, 37-38; Matter of Guardianship of Walling, 1986 OK 50, ¶ 14, 727 P.2d 586, 591. Even if it were true that a divorce action would constitute a `significant connection' as between the child, a contestant and the state, 43 O.S.Supp. 1990 §§ 505[ 43-505] (2) [now § 551-201(A)(2)] further holds that there be available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships. . . .
See Hall v. The GEO Group, Inc., 2014 OK 22, ¶ 12, 324 P.3d 399. In making this inquiry, we are not bound by the trial court's jurisdictional findings but must independently judge the basis for exercising jurisdiction. In re the Marriage of Jones, 2018 OK CIV APP 68, ¶ 25, 430 P.3d 544 (citing Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, ¶ 7, 829 P.2d 34 (finding trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, applicable before the Legislature enacted the UCCJEA in 1998)). ¶12 Adherence to and satisfaction of the UCCJEA's mandatory prerequisites are what allow a court of this state to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.
¶ 23 Likewise, we note that the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed whether the status exception applies in the similar situation of child custody determinations have concluded that it does.See People ex rel. Wyoming v. Stout, 969 P.2d 819, 821 (Colo.Ct.App. 1998); Balestrieri v. Maliska, 622 So.2d 561, 563 n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (citing cases from fourteen other states applying the status exception in child custody cases); Bartsch v. Bartsch, 636 N.W.2d 3, 6-7 (Iowa 2001); Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34, 36 n. 5 (Okla. 1992); In re S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 84 (Tex. 1992). Hence, there is persuasive authority to extend the status exception to parental termination proceedings.
In the case under review, the child's home state in Texas.Ewing, supra note 29 at 69; Joliff v. Joliff, Okla., 829 P.2d 34, 36 (1992); This does not end the discussion. Even if no action was pending in another state, Oklahoma's cognizance would depend upon its satisfaction of the UCCJA jurisdictional prerequisites.
Such litigation would be proper before a court in Montgomery County, Ohio, the home county and state of the child, and not before a court of this state. Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, 829 P.2d 34. The District Court of Tulsa County lacks jurisdiction of this matter and the court is directed to return the child to mother.¶ 3 Thereafter, Mother filed an application in the Tulsa County proceeding requesting attorneys fees, costs and expenses.
Such litigation would be proper before a court in Montgomery County, Ohio, the home county and state of the child, and not before a court of this state. Joliff v. Joliff, 1992 OK 38, 829 P.2d 34. The District Court of Tulsa County lacks jurisdiction of this matter and the court is directed to return the child to mother.¶3 Thereafter, Mother filed an application in the Tulsa County proceeding requesting attorneys fees, costs and expenses.