SB79 creates the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act in Oklahoma law. The bill authorizes courts, in child custody proceedings, to order abduction-prevention measures when there is a credible risk that a child may be wrongfully removed or retained. It defines key terms such as abduction, child custody determination, wrongful removal, and wrongful retention, and it ties the new procedures to existing Oklahoma child custody jurisdiction rules under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
The bill sets out how a party may petition for protection, what information must be included, and what factors a court must consider in assessing abduction risk. Those factors include prior threats or attempts to abduct, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse or neglect, travel-document activity, immigration or citizenship changes, ties to another state or country, and the safety or legal conditions in a foreign destination. If the court finds a credible risk, it must issue an abduction prevention order and may impose travel restrictions, supervised visitation, passport controls, bond requirements, education requirements, and other conditions designed to prevent removal of the child.
SB79 also authorizes emergency relief. In cases of imminent risk, a court may issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of the child, require a prompt hearing, and direct law enforcement to assist in locating or recovering the child. The bill makes such warrants enforceable statewide, allows entry onto private property and forcible entry in exigent circumstances, and permits fee awards against a petitioner who sought emergency relief in bad faith or for harassment. The act is codified in Title 43 and is scheduled to take effect November 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact is to add a detailed statutory framework for preventing international and interstate child abduction in custody disputes, while integrating with existing custody jurisdiction and enforcement law. It expands the tools available to courts, district attorneys, and law enforcement, and it creates new procedural requirements for petitions, hearings, and orders affecting custody, visitation, passports, and travel documents. It also clarifies that the new remedies are cumulative and do not replace other available legal remedies.
The general sentiment appears strongly supportive and protective of child safety, as reflected by the unanimous 8-0 Senate committee vote for do pass and the absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials. The main points of contention inherent in the bill are the breadth of judicial discretion and the intrusiveness of the remedies, especially ex parte warrants, travel restrictions, passport surrender, supervised visitation, and law-enforcement entry authority. Those measures are balanced in the bill by requirements for credible-risk findings, prompt hearings, and fee-shifting for bad-faith petitions.
SB79 would create new sections in Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes establishing a uniform procedure for child abduction prevention in custody cases. It would supplement existing custody jurisdiction and enforcement provisions, authorize courts to issue abduction prevention orders and ex parte warrants, and allow law enforcement involvement in child recovery and prevention efforts. The bill affects parents, guardians, custodians, district attorneys, courts, and law enforcement, and it specifically addresses interstate and international travel, passports, visas, and foreign-country return mechanisms.
The available legislative history shows clear support for the bill, with the Senate Judiciary Committee reporting it do pass by an 8-0 vote and no recorded dissent in the provided materials. The bill’s framing around child safety, domestic violence, and preventing wrongful removal suggests a generally favorable reception. No committee transcript is provided, so there is no evidence of substantive public debate in the supplied record.
The most notable potential controversy is the scope of court authority to restrict movement and custody rights based on a finding of credible risk, including supervised visitation, passport surrender, travel bans, bond requirements, and emergency ex parte warrants. Some may view these tools as necessary safeguards, while others may see them as broad and intrusive. The bill also raises due-process concerns because it permits immediate custody action before a full hearing in urgent cases, though it requires a prompt post-execution hearing and allows sanctions for bad-faith petitions.