The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

T HIS ARTICLE EXAMINES OKLAHOMA’S EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE of the rights of stepparents and other nonbiological caregivers to seek custody and visitation under the doctrine of in loco parentis . While Oklahoma courts have long recognized that the “best interests of the child” supersede strict parental entitlement, the statutory and constitutional contours of those rights have shifted considerably. The following discussion traces the development of this doctrine from early 20th-century cases to the modern frame work, through the 2021 decision in G uzman v. Guzman .

decisions which in detail is not necessary here, reveals that the considerations affecting the ques tion in cases of this kind are the welfare of the child , and the natural and legal rights of the parent, and the rights of those who have for years occupied the position of parents . Of these, we said in the Bishop case, Bishop v. Bensar, 132 Okla. 116, 270 P.569, the welfare of the child is the chief consideration.” 2 The dissent in Taylor makes a good argument for reversal of the trial court’s decision. The dissent reasoned that, like the common law in guardianship proceedings, parents possess a prior right to the care, custody and control of their children unless “the petitioning parent is an unfit person to have such care and custody.” 3 The dissent, again relying on the same foundation as guardianship

The trial court in Taylor decided in favor of the widow’s right to retain custody. The trial court also granted the father the right to visit with the child once per week. The father appealed the trial court’s deter mination of custody. The widow appealed the trial court’s award of visitation rights to the father. The trial court relied on the moral qualities of the custodial parent and the father, the efforts of the father to establish a relation ship and to provide support for the child and the level of care the child was receiving in reaching its decision. The Supreme Court in Taylor based its ruling simply on what was in the best interests of the subject child. The court upheld both decisions of the trial court. The Supreme Court’s decision is best explained in their own words: “A review of our former

EARLY RECOGNITION OF IN LOCO PARENTIS CUSTODY RIGHTS An early and important case in Oklahoma that recognizes the right of custody where a nonpar ent functioned in loco parentis was Taylor v. Taylor . 1 In Taylor , supra , the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s decision on a writ of habeas corpus request. The father was requesting custody of his then-six-and-a-half-year-old son. At three days old, the subject child was given by the father to his brother and his brother’s wife. The child’s mother died after the child’s birth. When the child was three years of age, the father’s brother died, leaving his widow in custody of the child. The father had little contact with the child and pro vided no support for the child prior to his seeking custody of the child.

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.

JANUARY 2026 | 39

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL