Okla. Stat. » Title 10 — CHILDREN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130 (2026)

Renumbered as § 7006-1.1 of this title by Laws 1995, c

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

352, § 199, eff. July 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). · cites it 21× “The most compelling reason for recognition of private use of § 1130 is the cross-pollination which is present in a clear reading of the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1130 and 10 O.S. 1981 § 60.”
J. v. v. State, 572 P.2d 1283 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 8× “District court entered an order terminating parental rights under 10 O.S.Supp. 1975 § 1130 [now cited as: 10 O.”
In the Matter of McNeely, 734 P.2d 1294 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 6× “In 1982 the father, an Oklahoma resident, sought to secure termination of the maternal bond on grounds then provided in 10 O.S.1981 § 1130(A)(2) and (4) 3 — abandonment and failure to contribute to the daughter’s support.”
Michael F. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 801 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 4× “After making this finding he terminated the father’s parental rights under 10 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1130(A)(5) and (7). From this ruling, Michael F.”
Barbara June J. v. Dep't of Institutions, 577 P.2d 1300 (Okla. 1978). · cites it 6× “Appellant thus questions constitutionality of 10 O.S.Supp.1975 § 1130. Appellant casts constitutional objection in terms of due process.”
Matter of S.T.G., 806 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 6× “Additionally it argues that the portion of 10 O.S.Supp.1990, § 1130 which could be construed to allow termination for neglect requires a three month period for the parent to be allowed to correct the problem.”
Marian P. v. State, 626 P.2d 864 (Okla. 1981). · cites it 5× “The requirement of 10 O.S.Supp.1980 § 1130(A)(3) that parents be given notice of the substandard conduct forming the basis of a termination proceeding under a deprived status, and an opportunity to amend *867 those conditions do not obtain as separate provisions under §…”
Ruth P. v. State, Dep't of Institutions, Soc. & Rehabilitative Servs., 578 P.2d 352 (Okla. 1978). · cites it 4× “10 O.S.1971 § 1130. The case was assigned to Court of Appeals, Division 1.”
Matter of A.D.B., 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 15× “and Davis , we stated that any termination of parental rights pursuant to 10 O.S.1981 § 1130 required either a *490 prior or a simultaneous adjudication of a child’s deprived status.”
State v. Creviston, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “In response to this statutory omission, the legislature enacted 10 O.S.Supp.1988 § 1130(8), 3 which authorizes parental termination if the evidence demonstrates that the mental illness or deficiency of a parent will result in harm or threatened harm to a child and that such…”
McDonald v. Wrigley, 870 P.2d 777 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “10 O.S.Supp.1993 § 1130(A)(3)(d). It must be understood that a grandparent does not have the same express authority to initiate a private, § 1130 termination action as does a parent or guardian.”
Matter of Keyes, 574 P.2d 1026 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 3× “It is first contended that 10 O.S.1971, § 1130, is unconstitutionally vague on its face and has not been sufficiently narrowed by the case law of Oklahoma to cure such vagueness.”
Show all 89 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(8): 2 cases
State v. Creviston, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “In response to this statutory omission, the legislature enacted 10 O.S.Supp.1988 § 1130(8), 3 which authorizes parental termination if the evidence demonstrates that the mental illness or deficiency of a parent will result in harm or threatened harm to a child and that such…”
Matter of LS, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(1): 3 cases
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “The most compelling reason for recognition of private use of § 1130 is the cross-pollination which is present in a clear reading of the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1130 and 10 O.S. 1981 § 60.”
P.E.K. v. K.V.K., 875 P.2d 451 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
State v. Harris, 1999 OK CIV APP 40, 976 P.2d 1117.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(2): 5 cases
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “The most compelling reason for recognition of private use of § 1130 is the cross-pollination which is present in a clear reading of the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1130 and 10 O.S. 1981 § 60.”
In the Matter of McNeely, 734 P.2d 1294 (Okla. 1987). “In 1982 the father, an Oklahoma resident, sought to secure termination of the maternal bond on grounds then provided in 10 O.S.1981 § 1130(A)(2) and (4) 3 — abandonment and failure to contribute to the daughter’s support.”
Matter of S.T.G., 806 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1991). “Additionally it argues that the portion of 10 O.S.Supp.1990, § 1130 which could be construed to allow termination for neglect requires a three month period for the parent to be allowed to correct the problem.”
Heckathorn v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 854 P.2d 381 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Matter of STG, 806 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(3): 16 cases
Matter of A.D.B., 818 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1991). “and Davis , we stated that any termination of parental rights pursuant to 10 O.S.1981 § 1130 required either a *490 prior or a simultaneous adjudication of a child’s deprived status.”
Marian P. v. State, 626 P.2d 864 (Okla. 1981). “The requirement of 10 O.S.Supp.1980 § 1130(A)(3) that parents be given notice of the substandard conduct forming the basis of a termination proceeding under a deprived status, and an opportunity to amend *867 those conditions do not obtain as separate provisions under §…”
J.M. v. State, 858 P.2d 118 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
State v. Creviston, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “In response to this statutory omission, the legislature enacted 10 O.S.Supp.1988 § 1130(8), 3 which authorizes parental termination if the evidence demonstrates that the mental illness or deficiency of a parent will result in harm or threatened harm to a child and that such…”
Matter of KLH, 858 P.2d 1296 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(3)(d): 1 case
McDonald v. Wrigley, 870 P.2d 777 (Okla. 1994). “10 O.S.Supp.1993 § 1130(A)(3)(d). It must be understood that a grandparent does not have the same express authority to initiate a private, § 1130 termination action as does a parent or guardian.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(4): 7 cases
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “The most compelling reason for recognition of private use of § 1130 is the cross-pollination which is present in a clear reading of the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1130 and 10 O.S. 1981 § 60.”
In the Matter of McNeely, 734 P.2d 1294 (Okla. 1987). “In 1982 the father, an Oklahoma resident, sought to secure termination of the maternal bond on grounds then provided in 10 O.S.1981 § 1130(A)(2) and (4) 3 — abandonment and failure to contribute to the daughter’s support.”
Mullins v. Mullins, 606 P.2d 573 (Okla. 1980).
Matter of Guardianship of S.A.W., 856 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1993).
Griffith v. Griffith, 730 P.2d 524 (Okla. 1986).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(5): 8 cases
Michael F. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 801 P.2d 703 (Okla. 1990). “After making this finding he terminated the father’s parental rights under 10 O.S.Supp.1987, § 1130(A)(5) and (7). From this ruling, Michael F.”
Marian P. v. State, 626 P.2d 864 (Okla. 1981). “The requirement of 10 O.S.Supp.1980 § 1130(A)(3) that parents be given notice of the substandard conduct forming the basis of a termination proceeding under a deprived status, and an opportunity to amend *867 those conditions do not obtain as separate provisions under §…”
Davis v. Davis, 708 P.2d 1102 (Okla. 1985). “The most compelling reason for recognition of private use of § 1130 is the cross-pollination which is present in a clear reading of the provisions of 10 O.S.Supp. 1983 § 1130 and 10 O.S. 1981 § 60.”
In re T.R.W., 722 P.2d 1197 (Okla. 1985).
Matter of S.T.G., 806 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1991). “Additionally it argues that the portion of 10 O.S.Supp.1990, § 1130 which could be construed to allow termination for neglect requires a three month period for the parent to be allowed to correct the problem.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(5)(a): 7 cases
Matter of S.T.G., 806 P.2d 636 (Okla. 1991). “Additionally it argues that the portion of 10 O.S.Supp.1990, § 1130 which could be construed to allow termination for neglect requires a three month period for the parent to be allowed to correct the problem.”
In re T.R.W., 722 P.2d 1197 (Okla. 1985).
Okun v. State, 856 P.2d 290 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993).
Matter of LC, 1998 OK CIV APP 96, 962 P.2d 29.
Matter of TRW, 722 P.2d 1197 (Okla. 1985).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(5)(b): 4 cases
State v. Creviston, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990). “In response to this statutory omission, the legislature enacted 10 O.S.Supp.1988 § 1130(8), 3 which authorizes parental termination if the evidence demonstrates that the mental illness or deficiency of a parent will result in harm or threatened harm to a child and that such…”
Matter of LS, 805 P.2d 120 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
McPherson v. State, 1998 OK CIV APP 176, 970 P.2d 1190.
In re Hm, 1998 OK CIV APP 176, 970 P.2d 1190.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(6): 2 cases
Matter of RJW, 789 P.2d 233 (Okla. 1990).
K.L.W. v. State, 789 P.2d 233 (Okla. 1990).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(6)(a): 2 cases
Matter of CC, 907 P.2d 241 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
State v. Christensen, 907 P.2d 241 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(7): 1 case
State v. Luther K.B., 844 P.2d 889 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(A)(8): 2 cases
Matter of As, 811 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Sanders v. State, 811 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(C): 3 cases
McDonald v. Wrigley, 870 P.2d 777 (Okla. 1994). “10 O.S.Supp.1993 § 1130(A)(3)(d). It must be understood that a grandparent does not have the same express authority to initiate a private, § 1130 termination action as does a parent or guardian.”
P.E.K. v. K.V.K., 875 P.2d 451 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Lampson v. Lampson, 1997 OK CIV APP 71, 950 P.2d 888.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(D): 5 cases
In the Matter of McNeely, 734 P.2d 1294 (Okla. 1987). “In 1982 the father, an Oklahoma resident, sought to secure termination of the maternal bond on grounds then provided in 10 O.S.1981 § 1130(A)(2) and (4) 3 — abandonment and failure to contribute to the daughter’s support.”
In re the Termination of Parental Rights, 847 P.2d 768 (Okla. 1993).
Griffith v. Griffith, 730 P.2d 524 (Okla. 1986).
P.E.K. v. K.V.K., 875 P.2d 451 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
State v. Harris, 1999 OK CIV APP 40, 976 P.2d 1117.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(c): 1 case
In re Lm, 2012 OK CIV APP 41, 276 P.3d 1088.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1130(c)(3): 4 cases
In re Wright, 524 P.2d 790 (Okla. 1974).
Sandra May D. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Institutions, 603 P.2d 1122 (Okla. 1979).
Coleman S. v. Dep't of Institutions, 581 P.2d 884 (Okla. 1978).
Williams v. Mashburn, 602 P.2d 1036 (Okla. 1979).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.