Nash Ex Rel. Nash v. Baker
522 P.2d 1335 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma law, minor children do not have a cause of action, either at common law or under statute, against a third party for alienating the affections of a parent and thereby depriving them of that parent's society, affection, and guidance.
Facts:
- Marian Nash and James Nash were married for approximately 18 years and had five children together.
- The defendant, a wealthy widow, was aware of the Nash family's marriage and children.
- The defendant lured James Nash, the husband and father, away from the family home.
- The defendant provided James Nash with inducements including a finer home and sexual charms.
- James Nash subsequently left his wife and five minor children.
- The defendant and James Nash engaged in an adulterous relationship.
Procedural Posture:
- Marian Nash, on her own behalf and as next friend for her five minor children, filed a petition against the defendant in an Oklahoma trial court.
- The defendant filed a demurrer to the children's causes of action, arguing they failed to state a valid legal claim.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer, dismissing the claims brought on behalf of the children.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer as to Marian Nash's personal claim, which proceeded to a jury trial and resulted in a verdict for the defendant.
- The plaintiffs (the minor children, through their mother) appealed the trial court's dismissal of their claims to the Oklahoma Court of 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:
Do minor children have a cause of action under Oklahoma common law or statutes against a third party for alienating the affections of their parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Romang, J.
No, minor children do not have a cause of action against a third party for alienating the affections of their parent. The court rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional arguments, finding that the law may validly distinguish between the rights of a spouse and a child. Furthermore, the court interpreted the relevant Oklahoma statute, 76 O.S.1971, § 8, narrowly. It reasoned that the legislature's deliberate inclusion of the word 'enticement' in the subsection protecting a spouse from the loss of a wife, and the omission of that word in the subsection regarding the 'abduction' of a parent, indicates that 'abduction' of a parent requires a forcible taking and does not include mere enticement. Finally, the court noted that the common law has never recognized such a right for a child, and the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue have denied it.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the traditional common law rule in Oklahoma, refusing to judicially create a new tort for children based on the alienation of a parent's affection. The court's reasoning demonstrates a philosophy of judicial restraint and deference to the legislature, interpreting statutes strictly based on their text and declining to expand common law rights in the family law context. This ruling effectively closes the door in Oklahoma for children seeking monetary damages for the emotional harm caused by a third party's interference in their parents' marriage, signaling a reluctance to have courts assign fault for the complex dynamics of marital breakdown.
