In re J.T.F.
2012 Ohio 2105
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- The Greene County Juvenile Court found J.T.F. dependent and awarded legal custody to Chantil Caskey under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3).
- Courtney Litteral, the child’s mother, initially planned to keep the child but failed to complete the plan, leading to placement proceedings in juvenile court.
- The juvenile court placed the child in the temporary custody of Greene County Children’s Services and later awarded Caskey legal custody.
- In probate court, Courtney Litteral petitioned to place the child with Robert and Amy F. for adoption, after which Caskey moved to intervene asserting a right to consent under R.C. 3107.06(D).
- The probate court denied Caskey’s intervention, holding that legal custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) did not equal permanent custody entitling consent; this denial was reviewed on appeal.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed denial of intervention, dismissing related interlocutory appeals and upholding the final judgment denying Civ.R. 24 intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caskey has a right to intervene based on Civ.R. 24(A). | Caskey asserts she has a legally protectable interest as J.T.F.’s legal custodian. | Robert & Amy F. argue Caskey is not a permanent custodian and has no consent-right under R.C. 3107.06(D). | No; Caskey lacks a legally protectable interest to intervene. |
| Whether Caskey’s legal custody constitutes permanent custody under R.C. 3107.06(D). | Caskey contends legal custody is permanent and triggers consent rights. | Permanent custody is limited to agencies under R.C. 2151.011(B)(32). | No; legal custody under 2151.353(A)(3) is not permanent custody and does not trigger consent rights. |
| Whether Civ.R. 24(B) permissive intervention should be granted. | Caskey seeks permissive intervention to contest the adoption. | Intervention would unduly delay adjudication and Caskey has no other viable ground for participation. | Denied; no common question of law or fact and would unduly delay proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 82 Ohio St.3d 532 (1998) (liberal construction favors intervention to promote judicial economy)
- Fairview General Hospital v. Fletcher, 69 Ohio App.3d 827 (1990) (definition of legal custody; residual parental rights preserved)
- Blackburn v. Hamoudi, 29 Ohio App.3d 350 (1986) (intervention standards; direct, substantial, legally protectable interest)
- Wagner v. Miami County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2003-Ohio-4210 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard for Civ.R. 24 decisions)