In re A.T.
2019 Ohio 5038
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- James and Robin Temple (maternal grandparents) had long supported their grandchildren A.T., G.S., and M.T.; their daughter Nichole is the children’s mother. The Temples provided financial support, clothing, transportation, and caregiving while Nichole lived with them at times.
- A house fire initially rendered the Temples’ home unfit; Crawford County Job and Family Services (CCJFS) filed dependency complaints and obtained temporary custody of the children in August 2017.
- The Temples repaired their home; CCJFS inspected and approved the residence in October 2018, and the children began visiting, including overnight stays. CCJFS later indicated placement concerns due to the Temples’ heating source.
- In April 2019 the guardian ad litem moved for permanent custody for CCJFS. The Temples installed a propane heater after being told they were no longer an option for placement and filed a motion to intervene on May 14, 2019 seeking party status in the permanent-custody proceedings.
- The juvenile court held a hearing and denied the Temples’ motion to intervene; the Temples appealed alleging the court abused its discretion by denying intervention (claiming they stood in loco parentis). The Third District affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Temples) | Defendant's Argument (State/CCJFS & Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents may intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A) by showing in loco parentis | The Temples argue their long-term caregiving, financial support, and overnight care show they stood in loco parentis and thus have a legal interest to intervene | Family relationship alone insufficient; record lacks proof Temples assumed parental role or made fundamental parental decisions | Denied — Temples did not prove in loco parentis; no right to intervene under Civ.R.24(A) |
| Whether permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) should be allowed (including consideration of children’s best interests) | The Temples contend the court should consider children’s best interests and permit intervention so they can seek custody/placement | Court must also protect parents’ procedural rights; intervention could unfairly prejudice the mother and delay proceedings | Denied — court properly considered party prejudice and reserved that grandparents can still be considered for placement without party status |
| Whether appellate court should reverse the denial as an abuse of discretion | Temples claim denial was abuse of discretion and against manifest weight | Trial court applied correct standards and its decision was reasonable | Affirmed — appellate court found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2007) (Civil Rules apply to juvenile custody proceedings; grandparents’ procedural avenues are custody or visitation motions)
- Schmidt v. Barber, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (Ohio 1986) (grandparental relationship alone does not create a legal interest to intervene)
- Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio 2010) (Civ.R. 24(A) permits intervention as of right only when applicant has a legally protectable interest)
- State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1993) (definition of in loco parentis: assuming parental rights, duties, and responsibilities)