Oklahoma Child Custody Agreement
Oklahoma legislated the absence of any presumption for or against joint or sole custody, so what parents agree becomes paperwork the judge can rewrite rather than leverage.
Find out where you stand in Oklahoma
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
Oklahoma answered this question by statute, and the answer is that agreeing buys no advantage. Under 43 O.S. 112(C)(2), there shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody. What agreeing does instead is trigger paperwork. Under 43 O.S. 109(C), if either or both parents request joint custody, the parents shall file with the court their plans for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control, and each plan must be accompanied by an affidavit signed by each parent stating that the parent agrees to the plan and will abide by its terms. The court then issues its own final plan under 43 O.S. 109(D), based upon the plan the parents submitted but with appropriate changes deemed by the court to be in the best interests of the child, and the same subsection says the court also may reject a request for joint custody and proceed as if the request for joint custody had not been made. Two further points shape the drafting: Oklahoma's instrument is a joint custody plan rather than a parenting plan, and Title 43 contains no enumerated list of best interest factors for custody at all.
Key Things to Know
- 1
Oklahoma legislated the absence of a presumption rather than leaving it unsaid. 43 O.S. 112(C)(2) provides that there shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody. That rules out the rule some states have, where the fact of agreement itself raises a presumption in the parents' favor. In Oklahoma the arrangement stands or falls on the best interests of the child under 43 O.S. 109(A), whether the parents agreed or not.
- 2
Asking for joint custody creates a filing duty for both parents. 43 O.S. 109(C) provides that if either or both parents request joint custody, the parents shall file with the court their plans for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control, and the plan and affidavit are filed with the divorce or legal separation petition or after it is filed. One parent's request is enough to trigger the duty, and the parents may file jointly or file competing separate plans. There is no equivalent filing requirement in a sole custody case, so Oklahoma has no general plan requirement for every case involving children.
- 3
Each parent has to swear to the plan personally. Under 43 O.S. 109(C), the plan must be accompanied by an affidavit signed by each parent stating that the parent agrees to the plan and will abide by its terms. That is why an Oklahoma joint custody plan cannot be submitted on one parent's signature alone, and it is the clearest practical difference between a plan and an ordinary settlement document.
- 4
The court writes the order, not the parents. 43 O.S. 109(D) directs the court to issue a final plan based upon the plan submitted by the parents with appropriate changes deemed by the court to be in the best interests of the child, and adds that the court also may reject a request for joint custody and proceed as if the request for joint custody had not been made. The court's final plan is the operative order, so a submitted plan is a draft rather than a settlement. 43 O.S. 120.3(C)(2) reinforces the point by confirming the court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine fundamental issues of custody, visitation, and support, and once there is an order, 43 O.S. 111 provides for indirect contempt for disobedience.
- 5
The document is not called a parenting plan and Oklahoma does not use parenting time. The statutory instrument at 43 O.S. 109(C) is a plan for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control, which 43 O.S. 109(B) explains as the sharing by parents in all or some of the aspects of physical and legal care, custody, and control of their children. Contact with the noncustodial parent is visitation. 43 O.S. 109(C) prescribes what the plan must detail, including but not limited to physical living arrangements for the child, child support obligations, medical and dental care for the child, school placement, and visitation rights, which is a floor rather than a form and leaves holidays, transportation, and communication to the parents to add.
- 6
Oklahoma has no enumerated list of best interest factors. 43 O.S. 109(A) states the standard on its own, directing the court to consider what appears to be in the best interests of the physical and mental and moral welfare of the child, and Title 43 sets out no checklist to go with it. What exists instead is a scatter of separate duties: 43 O.S. 112(C)(3)(a) requires the court to consider, among other facts, which parent is more likely to allow frequent and continuing contact, 43 O.S. 112(C)(3)(b) and 112(C)(4) forbid any preference based on gender or on public, private, or home schooling, 43 O.S. 113 governs the child's preference with a rebuttable presumption that a child of twelve or older can form an intelligent preference while providing that the court is not bound by the child's choice, and 43 O.S. 112.2(A) makes eight circumstances mandatory considerations in every custody case.
- 7
Domestic violence raises a presumption that reaches agreed arrangements. Under 43 O.S. 109(I)(1), a determination by the court that child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, or harassment has occurred raises a rebuttable presumption that sole custody, joint legal or physical custody, or any shared parenting plan with the perpetrator is detrimental and not in the best interest of the child. The trigger is a court determination rather than a conviction, and since 2024 the definition at 43 O.S. 109(I)(2)(b) expressly includes coercive control involving physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, economic, or financial abuse. Because the presumption runs against any shared parenting plan with the perpetrator, filing a jointly agreed plan does not neutralize it, and where there has been abuse, stalking, or a protective order this is a situation to raise with a lawyer rather than settle on a form.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in Oklahoma, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
Oklahoma Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
There shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody. An agreed arrangement therefore carries no built in advantage, and the document should be drafted to stand on the child's best interests under 43 O.S. 109(A).
If either or both parents request joint custody, the parents shall file with the court their plans for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control, filed with the divorce or legal separation petition or after it is filed. One parent's request triggers the duty for both, and the plan may be filed jointly or as competing separate plans.
The plan must be accompanied by an affidavit signed by each parent stating that the parent agrees to the plan and will abide by its terms. Both affidavits are needed, so the plan cannot be submitted on one parent's signature.
Any plan shall include but is not limited to provisions detailing the physical living arrangements for the child, child support obligations, medical and dental care for the child, school placement, and visitation rights. The list is open, so treat it as a minimum and add holidays, transportation, communication, and information sharing.
The court issues a final plan based upon the plan submitted by the parents with appropriate changes deemed by the court to be in the best interests of the child, and may reject a request for joint custody and proceed as if the request had not been made. The court's plan is the order, so the filed document is a draft.
Joint custody and joint care, custody, and control mean the sharing by parents in all or some of the aspects of physical and legal care, custody, and control of their children. Oklahoma uses custody, joint custody, sole custody, and visitation, and does not use parenting time or the term parenting plan for the parents' filing.
Parents may modify the plan by agreement, but the modification must be filed and the court approves it only if it determines the modifications are in the best interests of the child. One parent alone may apply to modify, and the court may terminate a joint custody decree on the request of one or both parents or whenever it determines the decree is not in the child's best interests.
Where the parents dispute the interpretation of a provision of the plan, the court may appoint an arbitrator whose determination is final and binding on the parties until further order of the court, and if a parent refuses to consent to arbitration the court may terminate the joint custody decree.
Relocation means moving the child's principal residence over seventy five miles for sixty days or more, excluding temporary absences. Written notice is due by the sixtieth day before the move, the notice must warn that an objection is due within thirty days, and if no proceeding is filed within thirty days the relocation is authorized. The relocating person must prove good faith, after which the burden shifts to the nonrelocating person on best interests.
Where the section conflicts with an existing custody order or enforceable agreement, it does not apply to the terms of that order or agreement governing relocation, so parents may set their own relocation rules. Separately, in making an order for custody the court shall require compliance with section 112.3, and 43 O.S. 112.3(D) requires the statutory notice language in the order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Agreeing does not tilt the outcome, because Oklahoma removed the tilt by statute. 43 O.S. 112(C)(2) provides that there shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody. What agreeing does is trigger a filing duty under 43 O.S. 109(C), where a request for joint custody by either or both parents obliges the parents to file their plans for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control with an affidavit from each parent. The court then issues its own final plan under 43 O.S. 109(D), based upon what the parents filed but with appropriate changes deemed by the court to be in the best interests of the child, and it may reject the joint custody request outright.
Yes, and Oklahoma goes further than approval. Under 43 O.S. 109(D) the court issues its own final plan rather than simply signing off on the parents' document, so the operative order is the court's plan and not the plan that was filed. 43 O.S. 120.3(C)(2) confirms the court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine fundamental issues of custody, visitation, and support. Title 43 gives parents no separate contract route either: 43 O.S. 205 lets spouses contract as to property, agree in writing to an immediate separation, and make provision for support, and custody is not on that list. Once an order exists, 43 O.S. 111 provides for indirect contempt when it is disobeyed.
Not by that name, and not in every case. The Oklahoma instrument is a plan for the exercise of joint care, custody, and control under 43 O.S. 109(C), and the filing duty arises only where either or both parents have requested joint custody. In a sole custody case no plan is filed at all. Oklahoma also does not use parenting time; contact with the noncustodial parent is visitation, and 43 O.S. 109(B) defines joint custody and joint care, custody, and control as the sharing by parents in all or some of the aspects of physical and legal care, custody, and control of their children.
43 O.S. 109(C) provides that any plan shall include but is not limited to provisions detailing the physical living arrangements for the child, child support obligations, medical and dental care for the child, school placement, and visitation rights. Because the list is expressly open, it is a floor rather than a form, and matters the statute does not name, such as holidays, transportation, communication between the parents, and how information is shared, are worth adding. The plan must also be accompanied by an affidavit signed by each parent stating that the parent agrees to the plan and will abide by its terms.
No, and the statute says so in terms. 43 O.S. 112(C)(2) provides that there shall be neither a legal preference nor a presumption for or against joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or sole custody. Oklahoma does state a related policy elsewhere: 43 O.S. 110.1 declares a policy of assuring children frequent and continuing contact with both parents, and allows the court, on a parent's request, to provide substantially equal access at a temporary order or at a final hearing unless it finds shared parenting would be detrimental, with findings of fact and conclusions of law required after a final hearing on the merits. Since the 2021 amendment the parents' ability to cooperate is evidence the court may consider rather than a condition of that policy.
Oklahoma does not have a statutory list. 43 O.S. 109(A) directs the court to consider what appears to be in the best interests of the physical and mental and moral welfare of the child, and Title 43 stops there. Separate provisions add specific duties without forming a list: 43 O.S. 112(C)(3)(a) requires the court to consider, among other facts, which parent is more likely to allow frequent and continuing contact with the other; 43 O.S. 112(C)(3)(b) and 112(C)(4) bar any preference based on gender or on public, private, or home schooling; 43 O.S. 113 sets a rebuttable presumption that a child of twelve or older can form an intelligent preference while providing that the court is not bound by the child's choice; and 43 O.S. 112.2(A) requires the court to consider eight circumstances in every custody case, seven of which raise a rebuttable presumption against custody under 43 O.S. 112.2(B).
By filing, not by handshake. Under 43 O.S. 109(E) the parents may modify the plan by agreement, but the modification must be filed with the court, and the court approves it only if it determines the modifications are in the best interests of the child. Under 43 O.S. 109(F) one parent alone may ask the court to modify. The arrangement is also not permanent: 43 O.S. 109(G)(1) allows the court to terminate a joint custody decree on the request of one or both parents, or whenever the court determines the decree is not in the best interests of the child.
43 O.S. 112.3 sets out a detailed notice and objection process. Relocation is defined as a change in the principal residence of a child over seventy five miles from the child's principal residence for a period of sixty days or more, not counting a temporary absence. The relocating parent gives written notice by mail to the last known address no later than the sixtieth day before the intended move, or by the tenth day after learning the information if sixty days notice was not reasonably possible, and the notice must carry seven items including the specific address, the date of the move, a brief statement of the specific reasons, a proposed revised visitation schedule, and a warning that an objection must be made within thirty days or the relocation will be permitted. The other parent then has thirty days from receipt to file a proceeding to prevent the move, and if none is filed the relocation is authorized. The burden is split under 43 O.S. 112.3(K): the relocating person must prove the move is made in good faith, and if that is met the burden shifts to the nonrelocating person to show the move is not in the child's best interest, with eight decision factors at 43 O.S. 112.3(J)(1).
Yes, and this is one of the few places Title 43 lets a private agreement displace a statutory scheme. 43 O.S. 112.3(N)(2) provides that to the extent the section conflicts with an existing custody order or enforceable agreement, the section does not apply to the terms of that order or agreement governing relocation. 43 O.S. 112.3(A)(3) supports the same reading by defining a person entitled to custody of or visitation with a child as one entitled by virtue of a court order or by an express agreement that is subject to court enforcement. Separately, the statutory relocation notice language has to appear in the order itself: 43 O.S. 112.3(D) requires the court to include it, and 43 O.S. 112(C)(6) provides that in making an order for custody the court shall require compliance with section 112.3.
It raises a rebuttable presumption. Under 43 O.S. 109(I)(1), a determination by the court that child abuse, domestic violence, stalking, or harassment has occurred raises a rebuttable presumption that sole custody, joint legal or physical custody, or any shared parenting plan with the perpetrator is detrimental and not in the best interest of the child. No conviction is required, and since the 2024 amendment the definition at 43 O.S. 109(I)(2)(b) expressly includes coercive control involving physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, economic, or financial abuse. Three duties accompany it: under 43 O.S. 109(I)(3) a parent's absence or relocation caused by the other parent's domestic violence shall not be a factor that weighs against that parent, under 43 O.S. 109(I)(4) the court shall consider as a primary factor the safety and well-being of the child and of the parent who is a victim, and under 43 O.S. 109(I)(5) the court shall consider the perpetrator's history of physical harm, threats, stalking, or harassment. The conviction and status based bars at 43 O.S. 112.2 and 43 O.S. 112.5 are a separate mechanism with narrower triggers.