DUBOSE v. NORTH
332 P.3d 311, 2014 OK CIV APP 68 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma's Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), standing to bring a proceeding to adjudicate parentage is strictly limited to the parties enumerated in the statute, which does not include a woman who is not the biological mother of the child.
Facts:
- Ami Dubose and Tracy North began a same-sex relationship and started cohabiting in 2001.
- North became pregnant through artificial insemination, and Dubose was present throughout the pregnancy and at the child's birth on October 11, 2007.
- The parties did not enter into a co-parenting agreement, citing concerns about the United States Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
- Dubose and North co-parented the child from his birth in 2007 until their separation.
- The couple separated in December 2012.
- In February 2013, North ceased all contact and visitation between Dubose and the child.
Procedural Posture:
- Ami Dubose filed an Application for Temporary Order for Support, Custody and Visitation in an Oklahoma trial court.
- Tracy North filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Dubose lacked standing to bring the action.
- The trial court heard arguments and granted North's Motion to Dismiss on the basis that Dubose lacked standing.
- Dubose, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a woman who is not the biological mother have standing to seek an adjudication of parentage under the Oklahoma Uniform Parentage Act, which explicitly grants standing to 'the mother of the child' and 'a man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated'?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kenneth L. Buettner
No. A woman who is not the biological mother lacks standing to adjudicate parentage because she does not fall within any category of individuals authorized to bring such a proceeding under the plain language of Oklahoma's Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The court's reasoning is based on a strict textual interpretation of the UPA, specifically 10 O.S. § 7700-602, which lists the parties who may maintain a parentage proceeding: the child, the mother, a man whose paternity is at issue, the Department of Human Services, or a legal representative. The statute explicitly defines a 'man' as a 'male individual.' Since Dubose is a female who is not the child's mother, she does not fit into any of these categories. The court rejected Dubose's argument that general statutory construction rules (where masculine words include the feminine) should apply, finding that the UPA's specific definition of 'man' demonstrates a contrary legislative intention that overrides the general rule. Therefore, Dubose does not have a legally protected interest required to establish standing.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies a strict, textualist approach to statutory interpretation, where the court refuses to expand the plain meaning of a statute to accommodate situations not explicitly contemplated by the legislature. It highlights a legal gap in parentage laws drafted primarily with heterosexual couples in mind, leaving non-biological parents in same-sex relationships without a clear statutory remedy to establish parental rights. The case underscores the importance for legislatures to update family law statutes to reflect the diversity of modern family structures. In the absence of legislative action, individuals in similar situations might need to pursue other legal avenues like adoption or seek recognition as de facto parents, if such doctrines are available in the jurisdiction.
