Okla. Stat. » Title 10 — CHILDREN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 21.1 (2026)

Renumbered as § 112.4 of Title 43 by Laws 2009, c. 233, §

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

204, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009. Editorially renumbered as § 112.5 of Title 43 to avoid duplication in numbering.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Matter of Adoption of RWS, 1997 OK 148, 951 P.2d 83.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Adoption of RWS, 1997 OK 148, 951 P.2d 83. · cites it 4× “¶ 23 The Combs' brief-in-chief argues that the Sapulpa and Bristow trial courts abused their discretion in refusing to allow appellants to amend their petition for guardianship, thereby refusing to consider evidence that appellants desired to produce on best interest of the…”
McDonald v. Wrigley, 870 P.2d 777 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “10 O.S.1991 § 21.1. 4 As a practical matter the grandparents may be among those the best informed as to the circumstances surrounding the parental care given to a grandchild, and an obvious source of information for a trial judge in determining the best custodian of a child.”
In re Baby Girl L., 2002 OK 9, 51 P.3d 544. “Custody should be awarded or a guardian appointed in the following order of preference according to the best interests of the child to: 1.”
S.W. v. Duncan, 2001 OK 39, 24 P.3d 846. “Title 10 O.S. § 21.1 provides that upon the death of the custodial parent a court may decline to award custody to the non-custodial parent because of that parent's failure to support the child, abandonment, or because custody by the surviving parent would harm the child.”
In re BTW, 2010 OK 69, 241 P.3d 199. “The trial judge determined that although the child's grandmother was a willing kinship placement, the evidence indicated she never completed a proper application and was rejected by DHS for that reason.”
Application of Smith, 837 P.2d 929 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “ISSUE Smith attempts to state her proposition of error several different ways, but the crux of her argument is: The award of custody of the minor child to the stepfather instead of the natural, maternal grandmother by the trial court constitutes an abuse of discretion and is…”
Opinions of the Justices, 427 Mass. 1201 (1998). “2 (l)(j) (1991); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 21.1 (D) (West Supp.”
Brown v. Brown, 867 P.2d 477 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “10 O.S. § 21.1; Manhart v. Manhart, 725 P.”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.R.S., 1998 OK 38, 960 P.2d 357. · cites it 2× “1991 § 2-103B provides that the court shall be guided by 10 O.S. § 21.1 in appointing a guardian for a minor 3 .”
Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, 908 P.2d 280 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “1991, § 31 provides: A child whose care and custody has been surrendered by a written relinquishment under this Act may not be recovered by the parents or other person who executed the relinquishment, except through order of a court of competent jurisdiction, based on a finding,…”
Miles v. Young, 818 P.2d 1258 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “10 O.S.Supp.1988 § 21.1. There was no requirement here for the trial court to base its judgment on a finding of unfitness.”
Matter of As, 811 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “[14] Title 10 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 21.1(A), provides in relevant part: "Custody should be awarded or a guardian appointed in the following order of preference according to the best interests of the child to: 1.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 21.1(A): 4 cases
Matter of As, 811 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “[14] Title 10 O.S.Supp. 1990 § 21.1(A), provides in relevant part: "Custody should be awarded or a guardian appointed in the following order of preference according to the best interests of the child to: 1.”
Miller v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 OK CIV APP 5, 62 P.3d 789.
Sanders v. State, 811 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
In re ECB, 2003 OK CIV APP 5, 62 P.3d 789.
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 21.1(D): 1 case
Brown v. Brown, 867 P.2d 477 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “10 O.S. § 21.1; Manhart v. Manhart, 725 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 21.1(E): 1 case
Donaldson v. City of El Reno, 2025 OK 9, 565 P.3d 346.
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.