IN THE MATTER OF M.R.P., PHILLIPS v. HAMPTON
Syllabus
¶1 Respondent/Appellant Michael Phillips (Phillips) is the putative father of M.R.P., a minor child born on August 3, 2023. Phillips executed an extrajudicial consent the day after M.R.P.'s birth waiving any legal interest or rights to the child and consenting to her adoption. Soon after, but outside of the fifteen-day window allowed by statute, Phillips sought to withdraw his extrajudicial consent, claiming he signed under duress. It also came to light that the form Phillips executed did not include the statutorily-required statement that Phillips was represented by counsel or had waived the right to counsel. After a hearing, the court denied Phillips' motion. It made no findings as to Phillips' claim that he signed under duress, but the court found the form Phillips executed was in substantial compliance with the statute because he had knowledge an attorney had been retained for him but chose not to consult with the lawyer. We find the court erred as a matter of law. "Where performance of statutory requirements is mandatory, there can be no 'substantial compliance' except in accordance with the particular provision." Barnes v. Transok Pipeline Co. , 1976 OK 27 , ¶15, 549 P.2d 819 , 822. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the court's order denying Phillips' motion and to enter an order acknowledging that Phillips' extrajudicial consent is invalid as a matter of law.
Opinion Excerpt
OSCN Found Document:IN THE MATTER OF M.R.P., PHILLIPS v. HAMPTON, et. al. Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case