Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 60.10 (2026)
Renumbered as § 7503-2.7 of this title by Laws 1997, c
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
366, § 58, eff. Nov. 1, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1971–1997 · leading case: In Re Adoption of Graves, 481 P.2d 136 (Okla. 1971).
In Re Adoption of Graves, 481 P.2d 136 (Okla. 1971). “The basic question involved in this appeal is whether the appellants, in view of the provisions of 10 O.S.1961, § 60.10, of the Uniform Adoption Act, are barred from seeking revocation of their consent to the adoption on the grounds of fraud, duress and intimidation practiced on…”
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992). “In Adoption of Graves, supra, the court held that the provisions of 10 O.S.1961 § 60.10 of the Uniform Adoption Act did not abrogate the pre-existing, common-law right of natural parents to revoke their consent to an adoption for fraud practiced by the adoptive parents.”
Matter of Adoption of RWS, 1997 OK 148 (Okla. 1997). “10 O.S.1991, § 60.10(A), [6] When the Combs tried to amend their petition alleging the unfitness of Jennifer as custodian of RWS, the court refused to allow the amendment because Jennifer had not received notice along with the other parties.”
Wagoner v. Bennett, 814 P.2d 476 (Okla. 1991). “In Adoption of Graves , the court held that the provisions of 10 O.S.1961 § 60.10 of the Uniform Adoption Act did not abrogate the pre-existing, common-law right of natural parents to revoke their consent to an adoption for fraud practiced by the adoptive parents.”
State ex rel. Choctaw Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. Anderson, 749 P.2d 542 (Okla. 1988). “The terms of 10 O.S.1981 § 60.10 provide: "Withdrawal of any consent filed in connection with a petition for adoption hereunder shall not be permitted, except that the court, after notice and opportunity to be heard is *549 given to the petitioner by the person seeking to…”
Bette J. W. v. Kitty Louise S., 589 P.2d 217 (Okla. 1978). “This court permitted the consent to be withdrawn in the face of 10 O.S.1961 § 60.10 which reads, “The entry of the interlocutory or final decree of adoption renders any consent irrevocable.”
In the Matter of Adoption of Jones, 558 P.2d 422 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976). “The natural mother’s consent bore the same date and on that date the trial judge examined the petition, heard the evidence, waived the six month waiting period, waived the investigator’s report and then entered a final decree of adoption. The right of the natural parent to seek…”
Combs v. Sutton, 951 P.2d 83 (Okla. 1997). “10 O.S.1991, § 60.10(A), 6 When the Combs tried to amend their petition alleging the unfitness of Jennifer as custodian of RWS, the court refused to allow the amendment because Jennifer had not received notice along with the other parties.”
Matter of Adoption of Morrison, 560 P.2d 240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1976). “Judge Burris treated the letter as an application to withdraw consent to adoption, provided under 10 O.S.1971, § 60.10 as amended, set a date for a hearing and appointed counsel to represent Robin.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 60.10(A) — 2 cases
Matter of Adoption of RWS, 1997 OK 148 (Okla. 1997). “10 O.S.1991, § 60.10(A), [6] When the Combs tried to amend their petition alleging the unfitness of Jennifer as custodian of RWS, the court refused to allow the amendment because Jennifer had not received notice along with the other parties.”
Combs v. Sutton, 951 P.2d 83 (Okla. 1997). “10 O.S.1991, § 60.10(A), 6 When the Combs tried to amend their petition alleging the unfitness of Jennifer as custodian of RWS, the court refused to allow the amendment because Jennifer had not received notice along with the other parties.”
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.