Legal Opinion

Opinion No. (1992)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports

Decided November 3, 1992Published

1Opinion of the Court

ATTORNEY GENERAL LOVING HAS ASKED ME TO RESPOND TO YOUR RECENT REQUEST FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION IN WHICH YOU ASKED, IN EFFECT:

1. WHO MUST PROVIDE THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING REQUIRED UNDER TITLE 10 O.S. 1107 (1991), AFTER A CHILD HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AS A DEPRIVED CHILD?

2. MAY THE DISTRICT COURT, BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT OR OTHERWISE, REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ("DHS") OR ITS EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS?

BECAUSE YOUR REQUEST INVOLVES THE DETERMINATION OF FACTUAL ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A FORMAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, THIS OFFICE HAS DETERMINED…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wood v. KaneSupreme Court of Virginia · 1925
  2. Columbia Borough. Lancaster County's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API