1.Was the appellee entitled to a reimbursement of the maintenance costs he had paid to the children welfare?
2.Did the trial court have the authority to modify an administrative order?
Oklahoma Laws provides that a trial court has the authority to amend an order that it has made if new fats that warrant its amendment are discovered during the hearing of the case.
The appellate court addressed the issue regarding absence of a hearing notice .The court stated that if the appellee had been served, he would have the opportunity to present his argument that he was not the child’s ``biological” father.
Secondly, the mother of J.A.R. lied to the court when she reassured the children department that the appellee was indeed the natural dad to the child thus prompting the ``granting” of order against him for the upkeep of the child in his absence during the hearing.
Thirdly the appellate court was of the opinion that Oklahoma State does not have a legislation that provides for repayment of monies paid as upkeep prior to vacation of ``court order”.
Lastly, the court cited section 56 of the Oklahoma Laws and argued that the trial court acted in within its mandate to modify the administrative order it had issued against the appellee.
The ruling regarding the discharge of obligations by the appellee was upheld and the ruling regarding repayment of the sum paid as maintenance for the child was reversed.
The appellate court judgment was just. The appellee was not the ``biological” father to the child thus the order requiring him to pay for the child upkeep was unfair considering the fact that the order was made without his knowledge because he was not served with the hearing notice of the hearing that led to the issuance of the said order.
However, despite the fact that the appellee ought o have been compensated for the monies he had remitted to the children services as upkeep for the child, Oklahoma does not have a provision that provides for the reimbursement thus it is impracticable a court to issue such orders.