Client Results

Relocation Prevented; Custody Modified in Father’s Favor

Jeff Bacon represented a father in a post-decree custody matter after the mother sought to relocate the children several hours away following significant life changes. Jeff Bacon filed a motion to modify custody and parenting time. As a result, the father was awarded primary custody, with child support adjusted accordingly. After the mother later returned to Tulsa, the parties transitioned to a 50/50 parenting schedule, resulting in a substantial reduction in child support.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

After a decree is final, custody can be changed only on proof of a permanent, substantial, and material change of circumstances that affects the child, and proof that the change of custody would serve the child’s best interests, the standard the Oklahoma Supreme Court set in Gibbons v. Gibbons, 1968 OK 77.

A proposed move by the custodial parent is not, by itself, that change; it is one fact in a larger record about where the child’s stability, schooling, and relationships actually are. When a relocation is more than 75 miles, 43 O.S. § 112.3 also governs the move itself, with notice to the other parent and a hearing on good faith and the child’s best interests if the other parent objects within 30 days.

Support follows custody. When primary custody changes, the guideline computation under 43 O.S. §§ 118A through 118I is redone with the parents in their new roles, and when the parents later share time equally, the parenting-time adjustment in § 118E applies once the parent with fewer overnights has at least 121 of them, with the largest reduction at an equal schedule.

A schedule that changes twice, as it did here, produces two different support numbers, each of which has to be put in an order to be enforceable.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

A move is the moment to look at the whole custody arrangement rather than only the relocation question, and the evidence that supports a modification is the father’s own record of involvement. Our Tulsa relocation attorney page covers the notice and objection rules, the custody modification page covers the Gibbons standard, and the child support calculator guide shows how a change in overnights changes the number.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Emergency Custody Defeated; Joint Custody Secured at Trial

Jeff Bacon was retained shortly before trial in a highly contested divorce involving an emergency custody request. After litigation, the Court denied the emergency custody filing, allowing the matter to proceed to trial. Following trial, the Court awarded the father joint custody and substantial parenting time, preserving his ongoing relationship with his children.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

An emergency custody request in Oklahoma is governed by 43 O.S. § 107.4. The motion must be supported by an independent report, such as a police or DHS report, or by an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge, showing that the child is in surroundings that endanger the child’s safety and that irreparable harm is likely if the conditions continue; the court must hear it within 72 hours.

Emergency motions are denied when the facts describe a custody disagreement rather than a danger, and a parent who obtains an emergency order on information the court later finds false must pay the other side’s costs and attorney fees. Defeating an emergency request before trial keeps the temporary status quo intact and prevents the other parent from entering trial with the advantage of an interim order.

At trial, custody is decided under the best-interests standard of 43 O.S. § 109 with no preference for either parent, and 43 O.S. § 110.1 states Oklahoma’s policy that children should have frequent and continuing contact with both parents who have shown the ability to act in the child’s best interest. Joint custody with substantial parenting time is the outcome that policy points toward when the evidence shows two capable parents.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

Being retained shortly before trial is workable when the father has kept records, because the trial is decided on documents and witnesses more than on argument. The Tulsa emergency custody page explains the 72-hour procedure from both sides, and our statewide custody guide for fathers covers what the court weighs at trial.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Father Protected After Out-of-State Child Relocation

Representing the father in an Oklahoma custody case, Jeff Bacon obtained a temporary court order restraining the mother from relocating the child out of state. After hearing testimony, the Court found that the proposed relocation was not made in good faith, denied the request to relocate, and ordered the child returned to Oklahoma by a specific deadline. This resulted in the child being returned to Oklahoma into Father’s primary custody while the case is pending.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

Oklahoma’s relocation statute, 43 O.S. § 112.3, requires a parent who intends to move a child’s principal residence more than 75 miles to give the other parent written notice at least 60 days in advance, and it gives the other parent 30 days to object.

When an objection is filed, the court may enter a temporary order allowing or restraining the move while the case is decided, taking into account whether notice was given, whether a revised schedule was proposed, and which parent is likely to prevail.

At the hearing, the relocating parent bears the burden of proving the move is proposed in good faith; only if that burden is met does the objecting parent have to prove that the move is not in the child’s best interests under the factors in § 112.3(J).

Good faith is usually a low bar, since the Supreme Court held in Scocos v. Scocos, 2016 OK 36, that employment, finances, and family are legitimate reasons to move, but it is not a formality.

A court that finds the move was not made in good faith need not reach the best-interests factors at all, and the statute allows the court to order the return of a child who has already been moved. A parent who relocates without complying with the notice requirement can also be ordered to pay the objecting parent’s expenses and attorney fees.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

The objection deadline is 30 days from the notice, and the temporary-order hearing is often the decisive one, so the evidence about the child’s life in Oklahoma has to be assembled immediately. Our Tulsa relocation attorney page explains the notice, objection, and burden-of-proof rules in detail, and the statewide custody guide for fathers covers the custody case that continues afterward.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Father Prevails After Child Withheld Over Abuse Claims

Representing the father in a high-conflict custody case involving allegations of domestic violence, substance abuse, and protective orders, Jeff Bacon negotiated an Agreed Temporary Order that allowed the father to resume unsupervised parenting time every other weekend after more than three months without unsupervised contact with his child.

As part of the agreement, the Court approved a structured transition plan addressing safety concerns while restoring the father’s relationship with his child and dismissing the parties’ competing protective order cases.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

When a custody case carries allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse, Oklahoma law gives the court tools that cut both ways. Under 43 O.S. § 109(I), a finding that a parent has committed domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption against custody for that parent, and the court can condition parenting time on supervision, testing, or treatment.

But an allegation is not a finding, and 43 O.S. § 107.3 allows the court to award attorney fees and impose other remedies against a parent who intentionally makes false allegations of abuse or neglect in a custody case.

Competing protective order petitions under 22 O.S. § 60 and following add a second forum in which the same facts are litigated, with the added risk that a finding in either case follows the father into the other.

An agreed temporary order is often the fastest way to end a period of no unsupervised contact. It lets the parties design a transition, for example an initial period of supervised or daytime contact followed by unsupervised weekends, and to dismiss the protective order cases as part of the same agreement, without a finding of abuse being entered against either parent.

Courts approve those plans readily because they address the safety concern and restore the parent-child relationship at the same time, and because a structured plan gives the judge a record of compliance to rely on at the next hearing.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

Three months without unsupervised contact is long enough to become a status quo, so the goal is a workable order quickly, not a perfect order eventually. Our abuse allegation defense page and the statewide protective order defense guide explain how these cases are defended, and the Tulsa child custody page covers the custody case underneath.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Father’s Visitation Restored, Support Contempt Resolved

Jeff Bacon represented a father who retained counsel after a period of incarceration, during which child support arrearages accrued and visitation had been suspended. Jeff Bacon negotiated a transition from limited therapeutic visitation to supervised parenting time, allowing the father to resume regular contact with his children.

When a child support contempt action was later filed, Jeff Bacon negotiated a payment plan acceptable to the Court, resolving the matter without additional incarceration and allowing the father to move forward while addressing his support obligations.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

Under 43 O.S. § 118I(E), incarceration for at least 180 consecutive days is grounds to modify child support, and for a qualifying sentence the current obligation is abated without court action from the first month after the incarceration begins until the first month after it ends.

That abatement does not erase what was already owed, and support that accrued before it or under an older order remains due; under 43 O.S. § 137 each past-due installment is a judgment by operation of law that the court cannot retroactively forgive.

A father who comes out of custody owing a balance is therefore facing two separate problems: an arrearage that has to be paid, and a contempt action in which the question is whether the failure to pay was willful.

Indirect contempt for nonpayment of support carries the possibility of jail, but Oklahoma courts routinely accept a purge plan, a schedule of payments the obligor can actually meet, in place of incarceration when the father shows his current income and a credible plan. The same is true on the parenting side.

When visitation has been suspended, the path back usually runs through graduated contact: therapeutic visitation, then supervised time, then an ordinary schedule, with each step tied to compliance. Courts prefer that structure to an all-or-nothing request because it lets the judge see the father performing before expanding his time.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

A support arrearage is negotiable in its payment terms even when it is not negotiable in its amount, and the worst response to a contempt citation is to ignore it.

Fathers rebuilding after incarceration should also file to modify the ongoing support amount to match current income under 43 O.S. § 118I, because the modification runs only from the date it is filed. Our child support enforcement defense and visitation enforcement pages explain both halves of this kind of case.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Oklahoma Father Reunites With Child After Years Apart

In a contested Oklahoma guardianship matter, Jeff Bacon represented a father who had been separated from his child for more than a decade after the child was moved out of state by his mother at a young age and later brought to Oklahoma. When a third party eventually filed for guardianship, the father was formally served and asserted his parental rights.

Through advocacy and negotiation, the matter was resolved with the father appointed as co-guardian, resulting in the child transitioning into the father’s care. After years without contact, the father was able to reunite with his child, provide stability, and support the child through high school and preparation for college.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

A guardianship of a minor under the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act gives a non-parent custody and decision-making authority, but it does not terminate the parent’s rights, and a fit parent who has been out of the child’s life retains standing to object to a guardianship petition and to ask that it be ended.

Oklahoma courts apply the rule from In re Guardianship of M.R.S., 1998 OK 38: a guardianship may be terminated when the conditions that led to it no longer exist and returning the child would not be harmful to the child. Until the parent is served with a petition, as the father was here, he may not even know that a third party is seeking legal authority over his child.

Guardianship cases are also where negotiated outcomes are most useful. A co-guardianship, an agreed transition schedule, or a stepped plan for the child’s move into the parent’s home gives the court a reason to approve an arrangement that a contested hearing might not have produced quickly, and it lets an older child adjust rather than be moved abruptly.

For a teenager, that often means finishing high school without disruption while the legal relationship with the parent is rebuilt.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

Years apart do not end a father’s rights, but they do shape what the court will order first, and a father who reappears should expect to show the court a plan rather than only a claim. Our Tulsa guardianship page explains how guardianships are created, contested, and ended, and the establishing parental rights page covers the steps a father takes to be recognized in the case.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Oklahoma Father Prevails at Contested Temporary Order Hearing

Representing the father in a contested paternity and custody case, Jeff Bacon successfully litigated a temporary order hearing involving competing requests for custody and parenting time. The father sought joint custody and substantially equal parenting time, while the mother requested sole custody with limited visitation.

The Court issued temporary orders after reviewing the parties' arguments, ensuring the father remained an active part in his children's lives as the case moves forward, including an award of equal parenting time.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

In a paternity case, custody and parenting time are decided under the same best-interests standard that governs divorce, 43 O.S. § 109, and once paternity is established the father stands on equal footing with the mother: under the Oklahoma Uniform Parentage Act, 10 O.S. § 7700-101 and following, an acknowledged or adjudicated father has the same rights and duties as any other parent.

The temporary order hearing is where those rights first take concrete form. Under 43 O.S. § 110 the court can enter temporary orders for custody, parenting time, and support while the case is pending, and the schedule set at that hearing tends to become the status quo the court is reluctant to disturb later.

Oklahoma’s stated policy in 43 O.S. § 110.1 is that children should have frequent and continuing contact with both parents and that parents are encouraged to share the rights and responsibilities of raising them, and the court may provide for substantially equal access to the children when that is in their best interests.

A request for sole custody with limited visitation has to be supported by evidence that the other parent is unfit or that equal time would harm the child; without that evidence, a temporary order that keeps both parents fully involved is the outcome the statute favors.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

Unmarried fathers should treat the temporary order hearing as the most important date in the case, because the schedule it produces is the one the judge sees working for the months before trial. Our Tulsa paternity page covers establishing paternity and the custody case that follows, and the statewide custody guide explains what the court weighs.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Protective Orders Defeated; Father’s Visitation Enforced

Jeff Bacon represented a father in a high-conflict custody matter involving multiple protective order filings. After a contested hearing, the Court denied the protective order request. Jeff Bacon then prosecuted a motion to enforce visitation, resulting in the father receiving make-up parenting time, with the issue of the father's attorney’s fees pending for mediation.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

A protective order petition under the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 22 O.S. § 60 and following, is decided at a full hearing set within 14 days of the filing when an emergency order has been issued, and the petitioner carries the burden of proving abuse, stalking, or harassment as the statute defines them.

When the court denies the petition after a contested hearing, no finding of domestic violence is entered, which matters in the custody case because 43 O.S. § 109(I) creates a rebuttable presumption against custody for a parent found to have committed domestic violence. Defeating the petition on the evidence keeps that presumption out of the family case.

The second half of this result rests on 43 O.S. § 111.3, Oklahoma’s visitation enforcement statute. When a parent has unreasonably denied or interfered with court-ordered visitation, the court may order make-up parenting time, counseling or an educational program, a bond or other assurance of compliance, and other remedies, and under § 111.3(E) the prevailing party is awarded reasonable attorney fees, mediation costs, and court costs.

Separately, 43 O.S. § 112(D) provides that a pattern of failure to allow court-ordered visitation may be found contrary to the child’s best interests and can support a change of custody. The statute is what turns a court order from a suggestion into an obligation, and a motion to enforce is often the first step that changes the other parent’s behavior.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

Protective order filings and withheld visitation tend to arrive together, and they have to be answered separately: the hearing on the petition is defended on the petition’s own allegations, and the lost parenting time is recovered through the enforcement statute. Our Tulsa protective order defense page and our statewide guide to protective order defense walk through the hearing; the visitation enforcement page covers make-up time and fees.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Protective Order Denied

In a contested protective order proceeding, Jeff Bacon represented a previous client at a full in-person evidentiary hearing. After testimony was taken and arguments were presented, the Court denied the protective order requested by the opposing party, waived court costs, and entered an order of dismissal. The Court instead directed the entry of a mutual restraining order to govern the parties’ conduct going forward.

The Oklahoma Law Behind This Result

A final protective order hearing under 22 O.S. § 60.4 is a contested evidentiary proceeding: the petitioner must prove, through testimony and evidence, that the respondent committed domestic abuse, stalking, or harassment as those terms are defined in 22 O.S. § 60.1. Both parties may testify and call witnesses, and the respondent may cross-examine the petitioner.

If the petitioner does not carry that burden, the court denies the petition and dismisses the case, and the statute lets the court decline to assess court costs. The difference between a denial and an agreed order is significant for a father: an agreed order still appears in the protective order registries and can trigger the federal firearm restriction in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), while a dismissal after hearing leaves no order and no finding.

A mutual restraining order entered in place of a protective order is a different animal. It is typically an order in the underlying civil or family case that directs both parties to avoid contact or harassment, entered without a finding that either committed abuse, and it does not carry the criminal penalties, registry consequences, or custody presumption that a protective order does.

For a father who is also in a custody case, that distinction is what keeps 43 O.S. § 109(I)’s presumption against custody out of the family court.

What Fathers in a Similar Situation Should Know

A protective order hearing is won with evidence organized around the petition’s specific allegations and a decision, made with counsel, about whether to testify. Our Tulsa protective order defense page and the statewide protective order defense guide cover the hearing, the evidence, and what an order does to a father if it is granted.

Results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.