Ray v. Woodard

7 Citing cases

  1. Carignan v. State

    1970 OK 82 (Okla. 1970)   Cited 11 times

    This determination was unappealed and became final. See Miracle v. Miracle, Okla., 388 P.2d 9; Ray v. Woodard, Okla., 377 P.2d 216, and In re Harris, Okla., 434 P.2d 477. Defendant contends that under ยง 1130, supra, he is entitled to six months after date his children were adjudged dependent and neglected in order to show capability of providing the proper parental care.

  2. State v. Lohah

    1967 OK 165 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 17 times
    In State ex rel. Cox v. Lohah, 434 P.2d 928 (Okla. 1967) our own Court explained that a district court possessed the statutory authority under 12 O.S. 1961 ยง 1277[ 12-1277], now codified at 43 O.S.Supp. 1993 ยง 112[ 43-112], to award custody to a third party if both parents are unfit.

    State v. Alexander, supra; Ex parte Lewis, 85 Okla. Cr. 322, 188 P.2d 367. Our attention has been called to the fact that in the case of Ray v. Woodard, Okla., 377 P.2d 216, we made the statement that the county court in a proceeding similar to the matter in question had the exclusive original jurisdiction. This statement was dicta.

  3. In re Harris

    1966 OK 253 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 7 times

    The juvenile court, at a hearing on January 10, 1964, permanently fixed the custody of the children in the Welfare Department which order was affirmed by the district court on June 30, 1964. This appeal being from an order of the court changing the custody of the children as distinguished from an order determining them to be neglected and dependent, plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right. Ray v. Woodard, Okla., 377 P.2d 216. Plaintiff in error contends the trial court erred in not allowing a minor child to testify as a witness.

  4. Jackson v. Huddleston

    1964 OK 238 (Okla. 1964)   Cited 3 times
    In Jackson v. Huddleston, 397 P.2d 132, 134 (Okla. 1964), we held that it is a fundamental principle of law that the right to invoke judicial action carries with it the right to appeal from an adverse decision unless the remedy of appeal is denied by statute.

    By the plain terms of the enactment under consideration the right of appeal by trial de novo stands extended not only to the parents of the minor whose status of dependency or delinquency is in controversy, but also to all persons "having custody" of such child. The remedy so afforded is available, whether the aggrieved party's rights of custody or access to the child were completely extinguished, as was the case here, or merely limited by "specified conduct," designed to prevent the minor's delinquency, dependency or neglect. Ray v. Woodard, Okla., 377 P.2d 216, 220. Statutes granting the right of appeal must be liberally construed to serve the ends of justice.

  5. Livingston v. Graham

    396 P.2d 496 (Okla. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    The Section also provides that appellant shall not be required to execute or file an appeal bond as a condition to perfecting such appeal. The plain language of the statute destroys respondents' argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction in the absence of filing the appeal bond required in appeal of probate cases under 58 O.S. 1961 ยง 726[58-726]. In Ray v. Woodward et al., Okla., 377 P.2d 216, 217, we considered closely related questions likewise presented by reason of the district court's failure to assume jurisdiction of an appeal from the county court's decree adjudicating the dependency and neglect of certain minors. In that case we noted that the statutes granting a right of appeal are to be construed liberally to effect the ends of justice, and in the opinion at 219-220 said:

  6. In re Lewis' Adoption

    1963 OK 24 (Okla. 1963)   Cited 22 times

    Const.) and could direct that appeals be taken either direct to this court or to the district court. See our discussion involving a similar question in Ray et al. v. Woodward et al., Okla., 377 P.2d 216. We are mindful that the Children's Court Act was approved on May 17, 1957, and that the Uniform Adoption Act was adopted on May 27, 1957.

  7. Ginn v. Superior Court

    1 Ariz. App. 455 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 32 times

    We have had to look to the treatment in other states in order to decide the question, and find that in a great number of states direct appeals are allowed from juvenile court orders. See In re Perry, 175 Neb. 711, 123 N.W.2d 633 (1963); In re Mikkelsen, 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 (Cal.App. 1964); In re Moon, 20 A.D.2d 622, 244 N.Y.S.2d 865 (1963); In re Perham, 104 N.H. 276, 184 A.2d 449 (1962); State v. Tuddles, 38 N.J. 565, 186 A.2d 284 (1962); Joseph v. Com. ex rel. Scalf, 310 S.W.2d 279 (Ky. 1958); Jones v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 335, 38 S.E.2d 444 (1946); Scire v. Mecum, 19 Conn. Sup. 373, 114 A.2d 385 (1955); In re Lindh, 11 Utah 2d 385, 359 P.2d 1058 (1961); State v. Bambino, 84 Idaho 554, 374 P.2d 854 (1962); Ray v. Woodard, 377 P.2d 216 (Okla. 1962); In re Redding, 184 Pa. Super. 352, 134 A.2d 689 (1957); Ex Parte Yelton, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W.2d 285 (1957); In re Tillotson, 225 La. 573, 73 So.2d 466 (1954); Everett v. Barry, 127 Colo. 34, 252 P.2d 826 (1953); In re Aronson, 263 Wis. 604, 58 N.W.2d 553 (1953). However, investigation reveals that these jurisdictions have specific provisions for appeal in their respective Juvenile Codes.