In the Matter of BTW
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the CourtWatt, J.
¶ 1 The appeal 1 of the district court orders of February 15 2 and 25, 3 2008, respectively, involves visitation and placement matters relating to the child and will be resolved by a single opinion in the instant appeal, 4 retained by the Court sua sponte We are asked to determine 5 whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering visitation with the goal of reunification and in directing a change in placement.
2 The record contains facts in support of both sides of the controversy on the visitation and custody issues. Nevertheless, a review of the record and the transcripts reveal…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Abel v. TisdaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
- Finnell v. SeismicSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Tibbetts v. Sight 'N Sound Appliance Centers, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Mueggenborg v. WallingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. PiggSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- IN THE MATTER OF M.K.T.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- In Re BTWSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- Howard v. Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
- Ator v. UNKNOWN HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF ATORCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.