OPALA, Vice Chief Justice.
Defendant/petitioner (father) sought modification of a child support and custody decree. After he testified that he owed accrued child support payments, plaintiff/respondent (mother) moved to strike from the record his entire testimony because he did not come into court "with clean hands." She argued he "was not entitled to ... invoke the [trial court's] jurisdiction" to make child support and custody changes.
The mother now presses for dismissal of the father's "appeal," arguing that the ruling sought to be reviewed lacks the attributes of appealability.
Original jurisdiction assumed; writ of prohibition granted.
HODGES, DOOLIN, ALMA WILSON and KAUGER, JJ., concur.
SUMMERS, J., concurs in result.
HARGRAVE, C.J., and LAVENDER and SIMMS, JJ., dissent.
See also, Rule 1.11(b)(5), Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.Supp. 1986, Ch. 15, App. 2, infra; Centorp Corporation v. Gulf Production Corp., 183 Okl. 436, 83 P.2d 181, 181-182 (1938); Wilson v. Walker, 190 Okl. 229, 122 P.2d 160, 161 (1942).
The pertinent terms of Rule 1.11(b)(5), Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.Supp. 1986, Ch. 15, App. 2, provide:
The terms of Art. 2, § 6, Okl. Const., provide: