failure to comply with court orders regarding children. A. Unless otherwise provided for by law, punishment for direct or indirect contempt shall be by the imposition of a fine in a sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by both, at the discretion of the court. B. Any court in this state has the power to enforce an order for current child support, past-due child support and child support arrearage payments, other support, visitation, or other court orders regarding minor children and to punish an individual for failure to comply therewith, as set forth in subsection A of this section. Venue for an action under this section is proper, at the option of the petitioner: 1. In the county in this state in which the support order was entered, docketed or registered; 2. In the county in this state in which the obligee resides; or 3. In the county in this state in which the obligor resides or receives income. Orders for current child support, past-due child support and child support arrearage payments are enforceable until paid in full. The remedies provided by this section are available regardless of the age of the child. R.L.1910, § 2278. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 14, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1984; Laws 1989, c. 362, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1989; Laws 1990, c. 101, § 1, operative July 1, 1990; Laws 2002, c. 461, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2007, c. 140, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2007; Laws 2008, c. 407, § 12, eff. Nov. 1, 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case:
Zeigler v. State, 806 P.2d 1131 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Zeigler v. State, 806 P.2d 1131 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “" It is clear, therefore, that the Legislature was giving the court power to impose sanctions for direct contempt of court in addition to the fine that is set forth in 21 O.S. § 566 that is referred to below. Therefore, effective with the passage of the new statute, the trial…”
Harber v. Shaffer, 755 P.2d 640 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 4× “[1] The record here is not clear, but it appears the trial court sentenced Harber under 21 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 566, which states: Unless otherwise provided for by law, punishment for direct or indirect contempt shall be by the imposition of a fine in a sum not exceeding Five…”
Henry v. Schmidt, 2004 OK 34 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 566 (2001). 14 . Gompers, 221 U.”
Gibbs v. Easa, 1998 OK 55 (Okla. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Section 2011(2) specifically provides that if imposed on motion and warranted for effee- *586 tive deterrence, the trial court may issue an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses.”
Autry v. State, 2007 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “1 and 567, and 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 566. Section 565.1 provides: A.”
O'ROURKE v. City of Norman, 640 F. Supp. 1451 (W.D. Okla. 1986).
· cites it 3× “At the time of the events concerned in the present action, the Oklahoma Statute relating to punishment for contempt, 21 O.S. § 566 (1981), stated simply “Punishment for contempt shall be by fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court.”
Read v. Read, 2001 OK 87 (Okla. 2002).
“See 21 O.S.1991 § 566 and Rule 8.3, Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.”
State v. Pothier, 721 P.2d 1294 (N.M. 1986).
“05 (Page 1981) 10 days, $500 Oklahoma Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 566 (West Supp.”
Lepak v. McClain, 844 P.2d 852 (Okla. 1992).
“21 O.S.1991, § 566. The legislature has not provided any special proceedings or punishments for contempts of installment payment orders under § 850.”
Burris v. Hunt, 965 P.2d 1003 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “¶ 6 Additionally, both the June 5 minute order and June 9 minute order were fashioned in disregard of the requirements of 21 O.S.1991 § 566. First, the initial two-year “deferred sentence” in the June 5 order which employed the added restraint of a *1006 $2,500 cash fidelity…”
Harvey v. Auto Plus of Woodward, 287 P.3d 410 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012).
“21 O.S. § 566. Punishment for indirect contempt for failure to comply with an order of child support is also discretionary.”
Hogg v. State, 2008 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
“Id. Except as otherwise provided by law, the punishment for both types of contempt is the same: not more than six months in jail, and/or a fine of not more than $500.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 566(A) — 2 cases
Gibbs v. Easa, 1998 OK 55 (Okla. 2000).
“Section 2011(2) specifically provides that if imposed on motion and warranted for effee- *586 tive deterrence, the trial court may issue an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses.”
Autry v. State, 2007 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“1 and 567, and 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 566. Section 565.1 provides: A.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 566(B)(1) — 2 cases
Burris v. Hunt, 965 P.2d 1003 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
“¶ 6 Additionally, both the June 5 minute order and June 9 minute order were fashioned in disregard of the requirements of 21 O.S.1991 § 566. First, the initial two-year “deferred sentence” in the June 5 order which employed the added restraint of a *1006 $2,500 cash fidelity…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 566(B)(1)(e) — 1 case
Burris v. Hunt, 965 P.2d 1003 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
“¶ 6 Additionally, both the June 5 minute order and June 9 minute order were fashioned in disregard of the requirements of 21 O.S.1991 § 566. First, the initial two-year “deferred sentence” in the June 5 order which employed the added restraint of a *1006 $2,500 cash fidelity…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 566(B)(2) — 1 case
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.