Oklahoma House Bill HB2707

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25

Caption

Marriage; authorizing courts to order additional periods of possession or access to a child under certain circumstances; effective date.

Summary

HB2707 creates a new section of Oklahoma law allowing a court to award additional periods of possession or access to a child when a parent or other person has been denied court-ordered visitation or access. In general, the court may order make-up time to compensate for the denial, and the bill directs the court to do so when the denial resulted from a Department of Human Services investigation that did not end in a finding of abuse or neglect, unless a party shows good cause not to. The additional time must be the same type and duration as the time that was denied, may include weekends, holidays, or summer periods, and must occur no later than two years after the court finds the denial occurred. The bill also gives the person who was denied access the right to choose the timing of the make-up possession or access, subject to the bill’s limits. It expressly states that this rule does not create a cause of action against the Department of Human Services and does not waive sovereign immunity. The act is set to become effective November 1, 2025.

Impact

HB2707 would amend Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes by adding a new visitation-remedy provision tied to child custody and access orders. It would give courts explicit authority, and in some cases a duty, to award compensatory parenting time when court-ordered access is denied, especially where DHS involvement did not result in a substantiated abuse or neglect finding. The bill affects family law litigants, custodial and noncustodial parents, and others with court-ordered access rights, while preserving DHS immunity from suit.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available legislative history, the measure appears to be a targeted family-law bill with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The caption and text suggest a policy goal of restoring lost parenting time and providing a remedy for denied visitation, particularly in cases where DHS investigations do not substantiate abuse or neglect. Because there are no transcripts or vote records included, there is no documented opposition or support to characterize beyond the bill’s apparent remedial intent.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the mandatory make-up access provision when DHS investigates but does not find abuse or neglect. Supporters would likely view this as a fairness measure for parents or other entitled persons who lost time with a child, while critics may worry it could pressure courts to grant additional access even in sensitive family situations or after child-protection investigations. Another possible issue is the bill’s express preservation of sovereign immunity and denial of any cause of action against DHS, which may limit remedies for affected parties and could be viewed as protecting the agency from liability.