HB3298 creates the Uniform Judicial Interview of Children Act and adds a new framework in Oklahoma law for when a judge or other judicial officer may directly interview a child in certain civil cases. The bill applies to covered proceedings involving custody, visitation, relocation, nonparent custody, private adoption, guardianship, conservatorship, and proceedings under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. It defines key terms, limits the act’s reach, and makes clear that it does not apply to juvenile code or children’s code proceedings, child testimony, or interviews conducted by nonjudicial personnel.
Under the bill, a child, the child’s attorney, a guardian ad litem, or a party may request a judicial interview, but the decision remains within the judicial officer’s discretion and must be based on the child’s best interest. The judge must consider factors such as the child’s age, maturity, willingness to communicate, the likely value of the interview, possible harm, and whether other methods could better elicit the child’s views. A judicial officer who conducts the interview must have training in child interviewing, must allow proposed questions from the parties and child representatives, must create an interview record, and must explain the process to the child in age-appropriate terms before beginning.
The bill also sets rules for access to and use of the interview record. Parties generally may obtain the record on appeal if they pay required costs, unless they have validly waived access by stipulation approved by the court. If the child makes a contested factual allegation that could be dispositive, the judge must disclose it to the parties and allow response before ruling. The court must also determine confidentiality restrictions and seal the record when required by existing law. The act applies only to interviews requested or initiated on or after its effective date of November 1, 2026.
The bill’s impact is to add a uniform procedural standard to Title 12 for child interviews in family-law and other child-related civil proceedings, while preserving existing law on testimony, juvenile matters, and broader evidentiary rules. It is intended to promote consistency across states that adopt the uniform act and to guide courts in balancing a child’s voice, due process for parties, and protection of the child from harm. It also creates new obligations for judges regarding training, recordkeeping, disclosure, and confidentiality.
Overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously through House and Senate committees and passed the House and Senate floor with overwhelming support, with only four no votes on the final House vote. The lack of recorded committee opposition suggests broad agreement on the need for a standardized process for hearing children’s views in sensitive custody and related proceedings. The main areas of potential concern are procedural and privacy-related: how much access parties should have to the interview record, when a child’s statements must be disclosed, and how to protect children from embarrassment, retaliation, or other harm while still preserving fairness and appellate review.
HB3298 amends Oklahoma civil procedure by creating new statutory provisions in Title 12 for judicial interviews of children in covered civil proceedings. It establishes when such interviews may occur, who may request them, what factors a judge must consider, required judicial training, recordkeeping and disclosure rules, and confidentiality protections. The act also directs courts to interpret it consistently with other states adopting the uniform law and applies prospectively to interviews requested or initiated on or after November 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed House and Senate committees unanimously or near-unanimously and cleared both chambers with large margins, indicating general agreement that a uniform process for judicial interviews of children is beneficial. The final House vote included only four dissenting votes, suggesting the measure was mostly uncontroversial but not entirely without reservation.
The main points of contention are likely procedural safeguards rather than the bill’s overall purpose. The act gives judges discretion to decide whether an interview is in the child’s best interest, but it also requires disclosure of certain contested factual allegations and allows access to interview records on appeal, which may raise privacy and due process concerns. Another possible area of concern is the exclusion of parties and their attorneys from attending the interview, balanced against the need for child protection and candid communication. No formal committee debate is provided, but these are the issues most directly implicated by the bill’s structure.