Barnes v. Barnes
76 O.B.A.J. 186, 2005 OK 1, 107 P.3d 560 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The appointment of a parenting coordinator, with authority limited to facilitating communication, resolving minor issues, and enforcing court orders related to custody and visitation, does not violate a parent's equal protection or due process rights, particularly when the court makes specific findings in high-conflict cases that such an appointment is in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- In April 1999, Mother was granted custody of their two-year-old child in an agreed divorce decree, and Father was given standard visitation with extended summer visitation.
- In June 2000, Father requested the court to expand his visitation to one-half of the summer, grant him the right of first refusal for childcare, and modify child support.
- Communication between Mother and Father significantly deteriorated after both parents remarried, making Father's visitation with the child more difficult to arrange.
- A mental health expert who evaluated the family recommended the appointment of a parenting coordinator to assist the parents with communication, visitation problems, negotiating agreements, and advising on the child's best interests.
- Father stated he would not object to a parenting coordinator, and Mother initially testified she was willing to follow the psychologist’s recommendations and use a parenting coordinator.
Procedural Posture:
- A trial court entered and filed an order modifying the divorce decree on July 9, 2002, finding a substantial, material, and permanent change of circumstances and making modifications to visitation and child support.
- The trial court's modifying order appointed a parenting coordinator, and a separate 'Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator' was also entered, outlining specific issues within the coordinator's decision-making power.
- After hearing testimony from the parties and a psychologist, the trial court waived the parties’ signature on the Order Appointing Parenting Coordinator.
- Mother appealed the appointment of the parenting coordinator to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, arguing such appointment was unconstitutional.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the appointment of a parenting coordinator, with authority limited to facilitating communication and enforcement of court orders but not fundamental custody, visitation, or support, an unconstitutional violation of a parent's equal protection or due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Oklahoma Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Hargrave, J.
No, the appointment of a parenting coordinator, when its authority is properly limited, does not violate a parent's equal protection or due process rights. Under an equal protection analysis, the court applied the rational basis test, finding that divorcing parents with minor children who invoke the court's jurisdiction constitute a bona fide classification because the state has a strong, legitimate interest in controlling the divorcing process and ensuring children maintain frequent and continuing contact with both parents. The parenting coordinator's role is not to usurp parental rights but to aid communication and enforce court orders, distinguishing this class from those involving third parties or termination of parental rights. For due process, the court balanced the protected parental rights against the demands of society, concluding that the Parenting Coordinator Act and the trial court's order did not constitute a substantive due process violation. The Act imposes strict guidelines, limiting the coordinator's authority to matters aiding communication and compliance with court orders, explicitly stating it does not divest the court of jurisdiction over fundamental issues like custody or support, nor does it allow modification of orders. The inconvenience to a parent is subordinate to the child's welfare. The court further ruled that the trial court erred in failing to include child care costs with base child support for income assignment purposes, as Oklahoma statutes define child support to include such obligations unless specific exceptions apply. The matter was remanded for a determination of the exact amount owed for child care expenses. Finally, the court found no compelling equitable considerations to award attorney fees on appeal, directing each party to bear their own costs.
Concurring - Taylor, J.
I concur specially with the majority's decision. It is notable that the appellant (Mother) did not object to or raise the allegation of unconstitutionality of the Parenting Coordinator Act at any time during the trial proceedings. Furthermore, the appellant had initially agreed to the appointment of a parenting coordinator and expressed willingness to utilize their services.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for affirming the constitutionality of statutory schemes authorizing parenting coordinators in post-divorce or similar family law cases. It solidifies the principle that states have a legitimate interest in mitigating parental conflict to serve the child's best interests, even when it involves judicial intervention in parental dynamics. The decision provides a crucial framework for how such programs must be structured—with clear limitations on authority to prevent infringement on fundamental parental rights or usurpation of judicial power. It will guide lower courts in implementing parenting coordinator orders, ensuring they remain focused on communication and enforcement rather than altering core custody or support decisions, and highlights the need for precise orders regarding all elements of child support for income assignment.
