The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

and visitation rights against a biological parent when it is in the best interests of the minor child, by stating: We have consistently given compelling consideration to the best interests of the minor child in custody matters. Daniel v. Daniel, 2001 OK 117, 42 P3d 863, Taylor, supra . 24 We have held that when persons assume the status and obligations of a parent without formal adoption they stand in loco parentis to the child and, as such, may be awarded custody even against the biological parent . 25 This couple and more impor tantly, their child, is entitled to the love, protection and support from the only parents the child has known. Sutton’s argument must fail in light of the equities before this Court. Ramey is recognized as being in loco parentis to their child and is entitled to a best interests of the child hearing. 26 ...

Later, in Schnedler v. Lee , 27 the

MODERN EXPANSION OF IN LOCO PARENTIS STANDING AND THE PRIMACY OF BEST INTERESTS The doctrine evolved signifi cantly with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in Eldredge v. Taylor . 21 In Eldredge , the court held that a nonbiological mother and former partner in a same-sex civil union may seek to enforce a writ ten co-parenting agreement. The shifting of the shape of the law continued with the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramey v. Sutton . 22 Ramey holds that a person who was previously in a same-sex relationship and not related to a child by blood may seek custodial rights with a child. In Ramey, the court stated: This case is intended to recog nize those unmarried same sex couples who prior to Bishop and Obergefell, entered into committed relationships, engaged in family planning with the intent to parent jointly and then shared in those responsibilities after the child was born. Public policy dictates that the district court consider the best interests of the child and extend standing to the nonbio logical parent to pursue hearings on custody and visitation . This decision does not extend any additional rights to step-parents , grandparents or others. 23 The court’s refusal to apply the extension of standing and a right to a best interests hearing to “stepparents” only shows defer ence by the court to issues not presented by the appeal. It does not foreclose what has already been legally established, i.e. , that all third parties may seek custody

Supreme Court held:

Just as we broadened Eldredge’s holding in Ramey to remove the barrier of an express, writ ten co-parenting agreement between same-sex partners, we hold that a non-biological same-sex co-parent has the right to seek custody, visitation and support of his or her child on the same equal terms as the biological parent. 28 The fundamental guiding principle of our family-law jurisprudence is the pursuit of the best interests of the child. Rowe v. Rowe, 2009 OK 66 ¶ 3, 281P.3d 887, 889 (the “best interests of the child must be a paramount consideration” in determining custody and visitation). 29 Our jurisprudence has been consistent in considering issues of parental rights to be equita ble in nature, as this approach has allowed us to most adap tively serve the best interests of the child. E .g., Bomgardner,

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.

42 | JANUARY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL