A. In a court proceeding concerning child custody or visitation, a motion for an emergency custody hearing shall include an independent report, if available, to include but not be limited to, a police report or a report from the Department of Human Services, that demonstrates that the child is in surroundings which endanger the safety of the child and that if such conditions continue, the child would likely be subject to irreparable harm. If there is no such report, the motion shall include a notarized affidavit from an individual with personal knowledge that the child is in surroundings which endanger the safety of the child and that
not granting the motion would likely cause irreparable harm to the child. Upon receipt of the motion for emergency custody with supporting documentation, the court shall have seventy-two (72) hours to conduct a hearing. If the court fails to conduct a hearing within such time, the movant may present such motion to the presiding judge of the judicial district, who shall conduct an emergency custody hearing within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of the motion. B. If the court finds that any relevant information provided to the court upon which the court relied to make its emergency custody decision to be false, the court shall assess against the movant all costs, attorney fees, and other expenses incurred as a result of such emergency custody hearing. The movant shall pay all such costs, fees and expenses within thirty (30) days. Failure to make such payment shall be grounds for contempt, punishable by six (6) months in the county jail, a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both such imprisonment and fine. Added by Laws 2010, c. 350, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case:
Galbraith v. Galbraith, 2024 OK 43 (Okla. 2024).
Galbraith v. Galbraith, 2024 OK 43 (Okla. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, § 551-204; and motion of emergency custody hearing, 43 O.S., § 107.4. Winchester, J., with whom Kane, C.”
Jensen v. Poindexter, 2015 OK 49 (Okla. 2015).
“These arguments include: (1) attorneys are not prohibited from interviewing child witnesses; (2) Attorney was required to interview Child to fulfill his professional-responsibility duty to Client, to satisfy the pleading code's reasonable-inquiry standard, and to secure an…”
Jensen v. Poindexter, 2015 OK 49 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 5× “4 ¶5 The route taken by attorney and father in this case was pursuit of an emergency custody order via 43 O.S. 2011 § 107.4. Utilization of emergency custody relief demands thorough assessment of the allegations presented by a client; more so than the ordinary due diligence…”
Gruenwald v. Gruenwald, 2014 OK CIV APP 43 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The record does not show that the trial court found the information provided by Husband was false or that the trial court made a decision in reliance on such false information, as required to make an award of attorney fees under 43 O.S.2011 §107.4. We reverse. ¶2 The record…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 107.4(A) — 2 cases
Jensen v. Poindexter, 2015 OK 49 (Okla. 2015).
“These arguments include: (1) attorneys are not prohibited from interviewing child witnesses; (2) Attorney was required to interview Child to fulfill his professional-responsibility duty to Client, to satisfy the pleading code's reasonable-inquiry standard, and to secure an…”
Jensen v. Poindexter, 2015 OK 49 (Okla. 2015).
“4 ¶5 The route taken by attorney and father in this case was pursuit of an emergency custody order via 43 O.S. 2011 § 107.4. Utilization of emergency custody relief demands thorough assessment of the allegations presented by a client; more so than the ordinary due diligence…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 107.4(B) — 1 case
Gruenwald v. Gruenwald, 2014 OK CIV APP 43 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
“The record does not show that the trial court found the information provided by Husband was false or that the trial court made a decision in reliance on such false information, as required to make an award of attorney fees under 43 O.S.2011 §107.4. We reverse. ¶2 The record…”
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.