Hames v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Concurrence
with whom OPALA, Justice, joins, concurring.
¶ 1 In its opinion the court holds that protection of a child’s interests in the parent-child status relationship requires the appointment of independent counsel for the minor when a trial court is considering her eligibility for adoption under the terms of 10 O.S.Supp.1993 § 60.6(2).1 I concur in today’s pronouncement by reason of stare decisis, acknowledging that before entry of the decree of adoption and the creation of a new parent-child relationship the appointment of independent counsel for the minor is essential to protect the child’s rights…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- LCR, INC. v. Linwood PropertiesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Wade v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
- Matney v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Ingram v. Oneok, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Merrell v. MerrellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.