Kahre v. Kahre
916 P.2d 1355, 1995 WL 697959 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In child custody determinations, which are matters of equity, a trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence. The trial court has the discretion to weigh the credibility of witnesses, including competing expert testimonies regarding allegations of child abuse.
Facts:
- Greg Kahre and Shawna Tortolini married, had two children, divorced in 1989 with Shawna receiving custody, and then reconciled in 1990.
- Before filing for a second divorce in 1991, Greg Kahre and his mother, Jaeque Kahre, took their son B.K. to a clinical psychologist, Dr. Sternlof, alleging potential sexual abuse by Shawna.
- Dr. Sternlof reported the allegations as required by law but concluded in his evaluation that there was "no hard data suggesting sexual or physical abuse" and that the child had negative feelings toward his father, not his mother.
- Greg and Jaeque Kahre then began taking the children for therapy with a clinical social worker, Cecilia Owens-Beckham, for 135 sessions over several years.
- During these sessions, while having no contact with their mother, the children began to make increasingly bizarre allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse against Shawna involving costumes and cages.
- Ms. Owens-Beckham concluded the children had been ritually abused, but refused to allow the court-appointed guardian ad litem to review her 40 hours of videotaped sessions.
- Separate psychological evaluations of Shawna Kahre, including one conducted under hypnosis, found her to be a 'normally adjusted young woman' with no signs of pathological symptoms or connection to occult activity.
Procedural Posture:
- Greg Kahre sued Shawna Kahre for divorce in Oklahoma state trial court for the second time.
- The trial court entered an order granting temporary custody to Greg Kahre and later suspended Shawna Kahre's visitation rights.
- Following a custody hearing on April 12, 1994, the trial court issued an order on April 15, 1994, granting permanent custody of the children to Shawna Kahre.
- Greg Kahre appealed the trial court's April 15, 1994 custody order to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an order on September 26, 1994, staying the enforcement of the trial court's permanent custody order pending the outcome of the appeal.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered several subsequent orders granting supervised visitation to Shawna Kahre and ultimately, on March 30, 1995, again granted her full custody.
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 a trial court's decision to award custody to a mother against the clear weight of the evidence when the court rejects the opinion of a clinical social worker who concluded the children were sexually abused by the mother, but credits other psychological evidence and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem?
Opinions:
Majority - Watt, Justice
No. The trial court's decision to award custody to Shawna Kahre was not against the clear weight of the evidence. Custody contests are equity matters, and the trial court is entitled to choose which testimony to believe as it has the advantage of observing the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses. The court was justified in rejecting the testimony of Ms. Owens-Beckham, whose conclusions were based on the children's increasingly bizarre stories and whose refusal to share her videotapes with the guardian ad litem was suspect. The court properly considered Dr. Sternlof's report, which found no evidence of abuse, the other psychological evaluations clearing Shawna Kahre, and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, who conducted an independent investigation and acted as an arm of the court to protect the children's best interests. While the trial court erred in its reasoning regarding the viability of the 1989 custody decree, the error was harmless as the court retained jurisdiction to enter interim orders to protect the children's best interests pending appeal.
Dissenting - Opala, Justice
The majority errs by affirming trial court orders that were entered without jurisdiction. This Court's September 26, 1994 stay order unequivocally froze the custody arrangement with the father for the duration of the appeal, thereby divesting the trial court of any jurisdiction to modify custody or visitation. All of the trial court's subsequent orders granting the mother visitation and custody were 'coram non judice' (an act by a court without jurisdiction) and are facially void. By ignoring this blatant jurisdictional overreach, the majority tacitly approves of 'sheer lawlessness' and undermines the authority of its own stay order.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Summers, Justice
The trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Dr. Sternlof's written report into evidence. The report constituted inadmissible hearsay to which a timely and proper objection was made. Because the report appears to have been of considerable probative value in the court's decision-making, its improper admission likely caused prejudice to Greg Kahre's case.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial courts in matters of fact-finding and credibility assessment, especially in contentious custody disputes. It highlights a judicial willingness to critically scrutinize expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse, particularly when allegations are bizarre and the expert's methods lack transparency. The decision also affirms the vital role of a guardian ad litem as an independent investigator and agent of the court. The sharp dissent, however, underscores a critical and unresolved tension regarding a trial court's authority to act in a child's best interest when an appellate court has issued a stay order, posing a significant question for the limits of nisi prius jurisdiction during an appeal.
