SB163 amends Oklahoma’s child custody statute governing awards of custody and guardianship for minor unmarried children. The bill keeps the existing “best interests of the child” standard, but adds a statutory definition of “coercive control” and expands the domestic-violence-related findings a court may consider in custody disputes. It also clarifies that joint custody means parents sharing some or all physical and legal care, custody, and control, and it preserves the requirement that parents seeking joint custody file a detailed parenting plan covering living arrangements, support, medical care, school placement, and visitation.
The bill strengthens the court’s ability to address abuse, domestic violence, stalking, harassment, and coercive control when deciding custody or visitation. It creates a rebuttable presumption that custody or shared parenting with a perpetrator of abuse or domestic violence is not in the child’s best interests, directs courts to treat the safety and well-being of the child and abused parent as a primary factor, and says a parent’s relocation or absence due to domestic violence should not count against that parent. It also allows courts to consider a parent’s history of harmful or threatening behavior when making custody and visitation decisions.
Impact
SB163 would amend 43 O.S. Section 109, the statute governing custody awards and appointment of guardians for minor children, by adding more detailed standards for cases involving domestic violence and related conduct. The bill would affect family courts, divorcing or separating parents, and guardianship proceedings by requiring courts to weigh coercive control and other abusive behavior more explicitly in custody determinations. It would also reinforce existing joint-custody procedures for parenting plans and court approval, while giving judges clearer authority to deny or modify custody arrangements that are not in a child’s best interests.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text, the measure appears protective and child-safety focused, with an emphasis on strengthening judicial responses to abuse and coercive behavior in custody cases. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative discussion. The overall framing of the bill suggests a policy goal of improving protections for children and abused parents rather than changing custody law in a neutral or procedural way.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the new definition of “coercive control,” the expanded presumption against custody for perpetrators of domestic violence or harassment, and the breadth of conduct courts may consider in custody disputes. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to protect children and victims of abuse, while opponents may argue that the standards are too broad, could increase litigation, or may be applied inconsistently in family court. The bill also gives courts significant discretion to assess histories of threatening or harassing conduct, which could be debated as either a needed safeguard or an expansion of judicial authority.