Oklahoma

No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. Separately, § 110.1 states that the court may provide substantially equal access on a parent's request unless it finds shared parenting detrimental to the child. Duggan v. Duggan describes § 110.1 as an equal-access presumption in a joint-custody modification case.

Authority

Okla. Stat. tit. 43, § 109(A); preference at § 113

Source framework

No enumeration

Factor structure

n/a

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

n/a

Presumptions in the original survey

A court finding of child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, or harassment triggers a rebuttable presumption against custody or a shared parenting plan with the perpetrator and in favor of residence with the nonperpetrating parent (§ 109(I)(1)).

Child's voice / age rule

12 (rebuttable presumption of capacity)

Compare best interests nationally

§ 101, Seventh: "Incompatibility"

Authority

Okla. Stat. tit. 43, §§ 101, 107.1, 129. Okla. Dist. Ct. R. 8, tit. 12, ch. 2 app.

Grounds without a misconduct showing

§ 101, Seventh: "Incompatibility"

Other grounds and proof conditions

abandonment one year, adultery, pregnancy by another at marriage, extreme cruelty, fraudulent contract, habitual drunkenness, gross neglect of duty, imprisonment for felony, out-of-state decree not releasing the other spouse (9), plus two status grounds, impotency and insanity five years (11 non-no-fault grounds in all)

Separation

none as a ground

Timing

District Court Rule 8 ordinarily requires the petition to be on file 10 days without minor children or 30 days with minor children before a merits hearing, with an emergency exception on application showing good cause. Section 107.1 separately delays a final divorce order for 90 days after filing when minor children are involved; the court may waive that period for good cause without objection by either party. The statute excludes specified causes and permits an earlier final order when the parties voluntarily participate in marital or family counseling and the court finds reconciliation unlikely.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, "alimony without divorce," § 129, on any divorce cause , § 103 refers to legal separation actions

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Statutory relocation factors. Shifting burden. 60 days; exceptions apply.

Authority

43 O.S. 112.3

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

burden shifts to the objecting parent after a threshold showing

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

yes

What the court weighs

Court considers eight factors, § 112.3(J)(1)(a)-(h): relationships with each parent, siblings and others. Child's age, needs and likely impact. Feasibility of preserving the relationship through visitation. Child's preference. Pattern of promoting or thwarting the other parent's relationship. Enhancement of quality of life for the custodial party and child. Each person's reasons. Any other best-interest factor. The court may not consider a declaration that the relocating person will not move if relocation is denied ((J)(2)(b)). A proposed relocation may be a factor in a change of custody ((I)).

Who carries the burden

Relocating person must prove the relocation is made in good faith. If that is met, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating person to show it is not in the child's best interest (§ 112.3(K), Boatman ¶ 8). Arulkumar (2022 OK 90) applied it and affirmed a denial. Walters (2025 OK CIV APP 3) applied it and affirmed a grant.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes. The person with the right to establish the child's principal residence must notify every other person entitled to visitation, by mail to the last-known address, no later than the 60th day before the move, or the 10th day after learning the facts if the person could not have known in time and cannot delay (§ 112.3(B)-(C)). Contents: new address, date, reasons, proposed revised visitation, and a warning that objection must be made within 30 days. Adults with visitation must also give notice of a change in their own primary residence address. To the extent the section conflicts with an existing custody order or enforceable agreement, it does not apply to that order’s or agreement’s terms governing relocation (§ 112.3(N)(2)).

Which moves trigger the rule

'Relocation' is a change in the child's principal residence of more than 75 miles from the current principal residence for 60 days or more, excluding temporary absence (§ 112.3(A)(5)). Only a sole custodian or a joint custodian designated primary physical custodian can invoke the statute (Boatman 2017).

Objections and the effect of silence

A proceeding seeking a temporary or permanent order to prevent the relocation must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the notice. If none is filed, the relocation is authorized ((C)(2)(g), (D), (G)(1), (G)(4)). Only a parent entitled to visitation may object. A nonparent may seek revised visitation only ((G)(3)). Silence authorizes the move.

The modification threshold

Section 112.3 governs relocation directly and does not require a change of circumstances. It says a proposed relocation 'may be a factor' in a change of custody ((I)). Joint custody: a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation statute until the court names one (Boatman ¶¶ 6-7, Williamson). Boatman treated the mother's relocation as an 'obvious change of circumstances' requiring the court to modify the joint plan and appoint a primary physical custodian.

Other qualifications

The court is barred from considering a relocating parent's statement that he or she will stay if the request is denied, and 30 days of silence authorizes the move.

Burden summary

Shifting burden

Notice summary

60 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

more than 75 miles, for 60 days or more

Compare parental relocation nationally