Ynclan v. Woodward
2010 OK 29, 2010 WL 1040331, 237 P.3d 145 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent is not entitled to a transcript of an in camera interview with a child in a custody dispute merely to satisfy curiosity. Due process requires access to the transcript only when a parent appeals the custody or visitation determination; otherwise, release of the transcript is within the trial court's discretion.
Facts:
- Nancy Ynclan and Nolan Shawn Ynclan were married in 1996 and had four children.
- On February 27, 2008, Nancy Ynclan filed for divorce from Nolan Shawn Ynclan.
- During the divorce trial on January 30, 2009, the trial judge interviewed the couple's three oldest children in his chambers.
- The parents and their counsel were not present for the interview, though counsel for both sides had reportedly agreed to this arrangement and submitted written questions.
- A court reporter was present and recorded the interview.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Ynclan filed for divorce from Nolan Shawn Ynclan in the Garfield County District Court (trial court).
- During the divorce trial, the judge conducted an in camera interview with the children.
- After the interview, Nolan Shawn Ynclan made an informal request for the transcript, which was denied.
- The trial court granted the divorce and awarded custody of the children to Nancy Ynclan.
- Nolan Shawn Ynclan then made a formal request for the transcript, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- The final divorce decree was filed, and Nolan Shawn Ynclan did not appeal the custody determination.
- The trial court later filed a written order memorializing its denial of the transcript request.
- Nolan Shawn Ynclan (petitioner) filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the Oklahoma Supreme Court (highest court), seeking an order to compel the trial court to provide him with the transcript.
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 parent's right to due process require a trial court to provide access to the transcript of an in camera interview with their children in a custody dispute, even when the parent has not appealed the court's final custody determination?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
No. Due process does not require that a parent have access to the transcript of an in camera interview with their children merely to satisfy curiosity when the parent has not appealed the underlying custody determination. The court must balance a parent's due process rights with the child's right to be heard and the state's interest in protecting the child. The primary purpose of an in camera interview is to lessen the emotional trauma for the child and encourage frank and open communication, which could be undermined if the child's verbatim comments were readily available to the parents. While a complete denial of access raises due process concerns for appellate review, providing the transcript is only necessary to protect that right when an appeal of the custody order is actually filed. Absent a pending appeal, the decision to release the transcript remains within the trial court's discretion.
Dissenting - Watt, J.
No, but the majority's solution is wrong. While parents should not have access to the transcript, the majority's rule allowing access upon the filing of an appeal will destroy the confidentiality necessary for in camera interviews to be effective. This will discourage judges from using this vital tool and prevent children from being forthright. A better approach to protect both parental due process and the child's best interests would be to seal the transcript permanently from the parties and make it available only to the appellate court for review under an abuse of discretion standard. The majority's holding creates a mechanism for warring parents to obtain the transcript and use it as a weapon against the child, causing significant mental and emotional harm.
Concurring - Taylor, V.C.J.
No, but parental due process rights must be vigilantly protected. While concurring with the majority, this opinion emphasizes that in camera interviews are a significant departure from the fundamental principle that judgments must be based on evidence presented in open court. A parent has a basic right to be informed of, and to rebut, all evidence used against them. Therefore, before conducting such an interview over a parent's objection, a trial judge must conduct a full hearing and make specific findings on the record regarding the child's competency, the absence of improper influence, and why the interview is the most effective method of seeking the truth. This ensures that the deviation from standard due process is justified and carefully considered.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Oklahoma family law by creating a clear, though controversial, framework for conducting in camera interviews with children and governing parental access to the resulting transcripts. The court's holding balances the competing interests of parental due process against the need to protect children from the trauma of litigation. By conditioning access to the transcript on the filing of an appeal, the decision creates a procedural gateway that preserves the confidentiality of the interview for non-appealed cases but ensures a record for meaningful appellate review. The ruling's immediate impact is to standardize procedures for trial courts while also potentially incentivizing parents to file appeals primarily to gain access to the child's testimony.
