child custody

Articles and Updates

What is a protective order?

It is a civil order from a judge. Its purpose is to provide an extra level of protection to people who have been abused, harrassed, or stalked. It accomplishes this by creating a criminal penalty for a violation of the order. Normally protective orders state that the defendant may not contact the petitioner either in person, by text, phone, or social media;

Who Can Get a Protective Order?

In most cases, the petitioner must either be a family member, in a relationship, or had been in a relationship. There is an exception for people that are none of the above, but a police report must have been filed giving evidence of harassment or stalking.

What Happens If the Abuser Violates the Protective Order?

The violation of a protective order may result in the respondent’s arrest for violation of the protective order. The first time is a misdemeanor and further abuses of the protective order are punishable by a felony. This means jail, or possible prison time for anyone who ignores a protective order.

How are protective orders abused?

Far too many times, husbands or wives will use protective orders to cause their spouse problems and potentially give them an advantage in a divorce, paternity, or child custody case. Over and over again, unscrupulous attorneys and devious clients file protective orders on allegations that are completely false. Worse they insight and entrap the other party into arguments and possibly fights just so they can use this tool.

Horrible Outcome

The unintended consequences are not trivial. First, the more this tool is falsely used for manipulation of family cases, the more it becomes watered down for people who really needs it. Second, real violence can occur when someone pushes another person too far. Intentionally prodding and pushing someone into an argument or a fight to gain an unfair advantage in a family case can be like pouring gasoline on a fire. Finally, to often children are added to protective orders to manipulate child custody disputes.

How do you protect yourself?

First of all, don’t fall for it. Keep your cool and just walk away. If there are false claims, hire an attorney that specializes in protective orders, who can help uncover the truth and has no fear when it comes to putting on a hearing and cross examining the petitioner. A good litigation attorney can shine a light on the lies and uncover the truth.

Author: Ciera N. Freeman

Boeheim Freeman Law - 918-884-7791

Oklahoma Supreme Court Acknowledges Same-Sex Parenting

Non-Biological Parent’s Rights

In recent years there have been several Oklahoma court cases that established certain parental rights for non-biological parents in same-sex relationships (Eldredge v. Taylorand Ramey v. Sutton).  However, a more recent case, Schnedler v. Lee, poses slightly different facts than Eldridgeand Sutton.  Rather than two parents fighting for custody, in Schnedlerwe have three adults who have vastly different characterizations of the relationships that existed between themselves and the child in question. 

Schnedler v. Lee

In Schnedler, the Plaintiff states in the initial filing that she and the Respondent were in a relationship for more than ten years.  During that time, they had a daughter, whom they raised together.  The Plaintiff also states the sperm donor, who is the Third-party Defendant in the case, had no contact with the child and provided no financial support during the ten-year period, and it was only after the couple separated that the biological father had any contact with the child.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff says the donor signed a document indicating that he waived his parental rights and the Plaintiff, Respondent, and child lived for ten years as a family unit.  The Plaintiff states in 2015, when she and the Respondent separated, the Respondent initially followed an agreed visitation schedule for approximately seven months but then abruptly and arbitrarily refused to allow the Plaintiff any further visitation with the child.

  The Respondent states very different facts. She acknowledges she and the Plaintiff were at one point in a dating relationship, but shortly after the child was born they terminated their relationship and were no longer living together as partners but simply as roommates.  The Respondent claims the Plaintiff did not act as a parental figure in the child’s life, and the Respondent made it clear she was the child’s sole parent. The Respondent further states that the biological father of the child (Third-party Defendant) had been in regular contact with the child, and he had provided some financial support, while intending to maintain a “father-daughter” relationship with the minor child.  The Third-party Defendant corroborates much of this version of the facts.  

Three-Prong Test

Initially, the trial court and the appeals court sided with the Respondent, even though the court in Ramey“held that when persons assume the status and obligations of a parent without formal adoption they stand in loco parentis to the child and, as such, may be awarded custody even against the biological parent” (Ramey v. Sutton, 2015 OK 79, ¶ 15, 362 P.3d 217, 221).  The trial court and the appeals court based this decision on the three-prong test developed in Ramey which states that for in loco parentisto apply the couple must be:

(1) unable to marry legally; 

(2) engaged in intentional family planning to have a child and to co-parent; and 

(3) the biological parent acquiesced and encouraged the same sex partner's parental role following the birth of the child" (Id.).

The trial court ultimately determined that even though the facts of the case met the requirements for the first two prongs of the test, that because the biological father had not participated in the application of the third prong, that the test failed and in loco parentisdid not apply and as such, she did not have sufficient standing to pursue custody and visitation.  The appeals court affirmed this decision.

Equal Footing As Biological Parent

The crux of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the trial court and appeals court lies in disagreeing with their application of the three-pronged test that was formulated in Ramey. Their analysis indicates that the encouragement of one biological parent is sufficient to meet the standards in the third prong of the Rameytest and state as follows:

In this case, the record amply and plainly reflects that Heather both acquiesced in and encouraged Lori's role as a co-parenting mother to J.L. Accordingly, all three prongs of Ramey's standing test were satisfied--irrespective of Kevin's consent, or lack thereof, to Lori's parental role. This determination, however, does not end our analysis. Just as we broadened Eldredge's holding in Ramey to remove the barrier of an express, written co-parenting agreement between same-sex partners, we hold that a non-biological same-sex co-parent has the right to seek custody, visitation, and support of his or her child on the same equal terms as the biological parent (Schnedler V. Platt2019 Ok 52).

She is a Parent

However, the Supreme Court did not end there.  In their conclusion, they state that “Lori [Plaintiff] did not act in the place of a parent; she is a parent” (Id.).  As such, she, and others in similar circumstances, have sufficient legal standing to pursue custody, visitation and support for the child in the same way as the biological parent and that doing so is in the best interest of the child.  

    This court case is important because it expands the rights of those living in non-traditional family situations, so that they can have greater protection under the law.  The landscape of relationships and families has changed so much in recent years and it is crucial that our legislature and judiciary work to provide equal protection under the law that coincides with the needs of society.

 Author: Lauren Stanley

Provided by: Boeheim Freeman Law, 918-884-7791,

Child Custody - Battle or Balance?

What is “Best Interest of the Child”?

When you are involved in a child custody battle, whether it is from a divorce or a paternity case, it is a difficult to maintain a balance between your compassion, your fears, and your frustrations. Should you be aggressive? Should you crush the other parent? Should you be in total control, or should you be kind, caring, and compassionate towards the other parent? Believe it or not, there is a right answer. What is in the best interest of your child?

But, how do determine what that means? After years of experience doing child custody cases and working with children through that process, it became clear that children need four things:

  • Unconditional Love

  • Stability

  • Safety

  • Truth

Unconditional Love

Love without conditions. This means to love unselfishly. To care about their happiness first and being willing to do anything in order provide them happiness without expecting anything in return. In other words, unconditional love is given without expecting or even really caring if that love is reciprocated.


Order and continuity are essential to maintaining a child’s mental and emotional well-being. A stable environment provides a sense of constancy and predictability. Routine is an essential component of a child’s overall well-being. Although many adults perceive children as liking surprises and spontaneity, their enjoyment for the unpredictable emerges from a knowledge that they can and will return to a stable and reliable routine; something they can trust to be real and they can count on.


Stability feeds right into the issue of safety. Does the child feel safe and secure in their home and in their relationships. Are there strangers coming in and out of the house that make them feel afraid? Do the adults in the home behave unpredictably due to substance abuse or a lack good coping skills? Are disciplinary standards appropriate and consistent? Is conflict effectively dealt with in the household? Children are very sensitive to these dynamics and absorb everything around them. If the world around them is chaotic and perilous, their behavior will reflect that.


Kids don’t like to be lied to and most of the time they know when it’s happening. It is important for children to be able to trust their parents. Moreover, it is important that parents tell children the truth, so that they can learn healthy coping skills. Children learn from adults and it does not set a good precedent to teach them that it is acceptable to lie. If truth is a vague and optional concept it tends to undermine the love, stability, and safety that are so crucial to a child’s development and well-being.


It is important to find an aggressive and compassionate attorney who can help guide you. Make sure your attorney is thinking about the best interest of your child, and not just about their own wallet. The best Tulsa attorney will help to ensure everyone is working to create a solution that is in the best interest of your child, but is not afraid to fight when the other side can’t be rational.

Author: Lauren Stanley, MSt

Brought to you by Boeheim Freeman Law (918-884-7791)

Divorce - Protect Your Money and Your Life

Divorce - Protect Your Money and Your Life

While in a divorce, it is critical to modify your will, trusts, and advanced directives. Forgetting to do so, can lead to disaster if the worst was to happen. Protect yourself with a knowledgable and experienced attorney. Author: Ciera N. Freeman - Boeheim Freeman Law

Gestational Surrogacy Becomes Law

Oklahoma once again surprises many with HB 2468 authorizing gestational surrogacy. Gestational surrogacy is different from genetic surrogacy in that the surrogate is not genetically related to the child. The egg comes from a donor or the intended parent, not the surrogate. Fertilization takes place in vitro. This opens the door for male-male couples to have children.

The Governor signed this bill on May 24th and it went into effect immediately under the bills emergency clause. The statutory process provides for court approval of the agreement between the intended parent or parents and the surrogate. The bill is very specific about the requirement in order for a surrogate to qualify. There is a great deal of detail on the terms of contracts and the content necessary to be put in the petition seeking judicial approval.

If you have questions and want to investigate if this is right for you give us a call at 918-884-7791.

Medical Marijuana & Child Custody in Oklahoma

Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Law

Marijuana Licensees with Minor Children:

No medical marijuana license holder may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this law, unless the person's behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor.  63 O.S. § 425A(D) (OSCN 2019), Medical Marijuana

Marijuana Licensees - Protect Yourself Against Claims of Neglect

Parents who are licensed marijuana users are expected to act with the same precautions as those who are prescribed other controlled substances.  As with all medications, keep medical marijuana our of plain sight, out of the reach of children, and in properly labeled containers; and take medical marijuana in proper doses and during times when is does not inhibit your ability to parent.  Never drive with children after medicating.  In a home where there are duel patients who are parenting, alternate intake of the medication to ensure that one parent is alert and capable of taking care of an emergencies that may arise. 

Marijuana Licensees - What to do DHS or Family Court Gets Involved

Sensible use and safe storage of prescribed marijuana when children are in the home of the licensee affords protections to the licensee from DHS or family court interference with child custody.  If your licensed marijuana usage becomes an issue in your child custody or DHS case, call the family law attorneys at Boeheim Freeman Law918-884-7791