In re Adoption of K.
2018 Ohio 3082
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Grandfather (D.P.) sought to intervene and dismiss a stepparent adoption of his grandchild K., asserting prior juvenile-court visitation rights showed intervention was in the child’s best interest.
- He filed pro se motions to intervene under Civ.R. 24(B)(2) and to dismiss the adoption; prospective adoptive parent B.B. opposed intervention.
- Probate court denied intervention and dismissal, concluding the juvenile-court visitation order did not confer standing and grandfather had no statutory right to participate in the adoption.
- The court noted Civ.R. 24(C) requires a pleading stating the claim or defense when moving to intervene; grandfather failed to supply such a pleading.
- The probate court and appellate court relied on Ohio adoption law holding prior visitation orders and grandparent rights under other statutes do not constrain probate courts in adoption proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandfather may intervene under Civ.R. 24(B)(2) in a probate adoption | Grandfather: his visitation rights and best-interest claim share common questions with the adoption and justify intervention | B.B.: grandparents lack statutory intervention rights in adoptions; prior juvenile orders don’t bind probate court | Denied — grandfather failed to provide required pleading under Civ.R. 24(C) and had no legal interest to protect in adoption proceedings |
| Whether a prior juvenile-court visitation order creates standing in an adoption | Grandfather: prior order showing visits are in child’s best interest supports intervention/dismissal | B.B.: prior visitation orders/statutes governing grandparent visitation don’t apply in adoptions | Held: Prior orders do not confer standing; probate court must decide adoption based on child’s best interests without being bound by earlier orders |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dep’t of Nat. Res., 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion review and liberal construction of Civ.R. 24 noted)
- State ex rel. Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio St.3d 608 (1996) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re Martin, 68 Ohio St.3d 250 (1994) (grandparents have no common-law or constitutional right to access grandchildren; rights must be statutory)
- In re Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 (1991) (adoption statutes generally do not give grandparents standing to intervene; probate court not bound by prior orders)
- In re Zschach, 75 Ohio St.3d 648 (1996) (R.C. provisions prohibit visitation rights surviving a final adoption decree)
- In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213 (1988) (discussing grandparents’ lack of common-law rights with respect to grandchildren)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (1986) (further support for the proposition that grandparents’ rights are statutory)