The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

in Oklahoma for six months when they clearly had not. When the trial court held a special jurisdictional hearing, the parties indicated they simply wished to get the divorce over with. The trial court ultimately awarded joint custody with pri mary parenting responsibility to the father. The mother appealed the substantive custody determination. The appellate panel, on its own, raised the question as to whether the case was properly tried in Oklahoma. It noted that the UCCJEA was a matter of sub ject matter jurisdiction and could not be waived by the parties. The decision in Jones v. White is funda mentally at odds with the decision in N.A. and would normally be considered overruled as a Court of Appeals decision inconsistent with a Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, although it cited Jones v. White , did not expressly overrule it. The Holt case noted there are always two questions in a child custody case: First, does an Oklahoma court have jurisdiction? Second, should an Oklahoma court exercise its jurisdiction? The court in N.A. seems to have eliminated the first question and limited the UCCJEA to only the second ques tion. This appears to be in direct contravention of the UCCJEA itself. THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT The UCCJEA, as set out in Title 43 Section 551-201, provides:

State district court should yield to another State’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, but it does not remove the Oklahoma district court’s constitutionally-conferred subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the deprived status of children and custody matters.” 5 THE PROBLEMS If the UCCJEA is merely a matter of deciding between two competent jurisdictions, which one should proceed, then some very interesting problems arise. The act is clearly more than that, given the fact that the structure of the UCCJEA refers to jurisdiction, relinquishment of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments of other states. Insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, the act raises a number of issues with regard to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion. Are the provisions of the UCCJEA waivable? Can the parties con sent to appear in a forum that is not an appropriate forum under the UCCJEA? Can a judge raise the issue of noncompliance with the act if the parties do not? If the issue of noncompliance with the act is not raised at trial, can it be raised for the first time on appeal? Most importantly, if the case goes through to final order but is not appealed and is sought to be enforced in another state, can it be collaterally attacked in that state for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA in the first state? All these issues are opened up by the N.A. opinion. Prior cases had clearly decided these issues by determining that the UCCJEA was an aspect of subject matter jurisdiction, but those cases did not consider the effect of the state constitution on the UCCJEA.

PRIOR CASES

The opinion in N.A. departs from what has been the common understanding of the role of the UCCJEA in determining the court’s jurisdiction. Those earlier cases were not so unclear. Despite the court’s reference to earlier cases as “loosely using the language of subject matter jurisdiction,” that language was at the heart of those cases. In Joliff v. Joliff , 6 the parties had two children. The mother moved from Idaho to Oklahoma with the parties’ daughter. The father and son remained in Idaho. The mother initiated divorce pro ceedings in Oklahoma and sought custody of both children. The trial court determined that since the daughter had lived in Oklahoma for six months, it had jurisdiction over that child and over the divorce and, therefore, must have juris diction over both children. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed as to the child in Idaho. It noted that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), the predecessor of the UCCJEA, estab lished mandatory prerequisites for determining subject matter juris diction in custody cases. It quoted the seminal case in Oklahoma of Holt v. District Court , 7 a case not cited in N.A. , where that court noted that the UCCJA went about the problem of the interstate child in a number of ways but primar ily by “limiting the jurisdiction of courts to act in custody matters.” 8 Primarily, with regard to subject matter jurisdiction, there is the case of Jones v. White , 9 where the parties were originally from New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The husband returned to Oklahoma, where he had previously lived, and filed for divorce. He alleged that the children had been living

A. Except as otherwise pro

vided in [Section 551-204] of this act, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody deter mination only if:

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

10 | JANUARY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL