Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7001-1.1 (2026)
Renumbered as § 1-1-101 of Title 10A by Laws 2009, c
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
233, § 209, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1996–2010 · leading case: In Re Adoption of Lds, 2006 OK 80 (Okla. 2007).
In Re Adoption of Lds, 2006 OK 80 (Okla. 2007). “Rather, the record on appeal demonstrates that it was caused in large part by the apparent confusion and the misdirection of the trial court, counsel, and DHS in fulfilling the mandate of the Oklahoma Children's Code, Okla. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 7001-1.1 through 7007-1.”
Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003). “; the Oklahoma Children's Code, 10 O.S.1991 § 7001-1.1 et seq.; statutes governing filiation proceedings, 10 O.”
Smith v. Dinwiddie, 510 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2007). “The deprived-child proceedings against Smith were civil in nature, and thus he has not suffered successive criminal punishments.”
In Re Js, 2008 OK CIV APP 15 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008). “Our statutes require judicial findings regarding whether "reasonable efforts" have been exercised by DHS to provide for the safe return of children to their own home in all voluntary and involuntary child custody court proceedings brought under the Oklahoma Children's Code, 10…”
Staton v. Shuler, 155 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2006). “Rather, the record on appeal demonstrates that it was caused in large part by the apparent confusion and the misdirection of the trial court, counsel, and DHS in fulfilling the mandate of the Oklahoma Children's Code, Okla. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 7001-1.1 through 7007-1.”
Skurnack v. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 46 P.3d 198 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). “DHS argues that it is entitled to immunity under § 155(4) because it was "fulfilling its statutory obligation under the Oklahoma Children's Code and the Child Abuse Reporting and Prevention Act, 10 O.S. § 7001-1.1 et seq. and 10 O.S. § 7101, et seq.”
Briggs v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (W.D. Okla. 2007). “"For purposes of the Oklahoma Children’s Code, [10 O.S. § 7001-1.1 et seq.,] the terms 'court-appointed special advocate’ and ‘guardian ad litem' shall have the same function.”
Briggs v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (W.D. Okla. 2007). “The Oklahoma Children’s Code, 10 O.S. § 7001-1.1 et seq., imposes upon DHS the duty to investigate.”
In Re Hj, 2006 OK CIV APP 153 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). “NOTES [1] In Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Children's Code, 10 O.S.2001 § 7001-1.1 et seq., the standard of family reunification is "reasonable efforts.”
Johnson v. State, 149 P.3d 1073 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). “In Oklahoma, pursuant to the Oklahoma Children's Code, 10 O.S.2001 § 7001-1.1 et seq., the standard of family reunification is "reasonable efforts.”
Stephens v. State, 177 P.3d 590 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008). “Our statutes require judicial findings regarding whether "reasonable efforts” have been exercised by DHS to provide for the safe return of children to their own home in all voluntary and involuntaiy child custody court proceedings brought under the Oklahoma Children’s Code, 10…”
In the Matter of A.M, 970 P.2d 1198 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998). “had moved into the house until three days later, and that she was unaware how Mother had moved because Mother had no car.”
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.