In re K.K.E.
2020 Ohio 6723
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Newborn K.K.E. was removed by Tuscarawas County Job & Family Services (TCJFS) one day after birth (Apr. 24, 2020) and temporary custody was granted; dependency complaint filed citing parental drug use and the infant’s Suboxone withdrawal.
- Parents had two older children already placed in permanent custody with TCJFS; parents did not participate in services and their whereabouts became unknown.
- Paternal aunt and uncle (W.C. and K.C.) completed a home study in June 2020 and sought custody/intervention on July 22, 2020.
- At adjudicatory and dispositional hearings (parents did not appear), the trial court found the child dependent, addressed the motion to intervene, and denied it for lack of party status or in loco parentis showing.
- Trial court granted TCJFS permanent custody on July 29, 2020; appellants appealed the denial of their motion to intervene.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | TCJFS' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants may intervene as of right under Civ.R. 24(A) | Appellants sought party status to obtain custody (desire for custody) | No statutory or preexisting legal interest; never stood in loco parentis | Denied — no legal interest or prior parental role; no Civ.R.24(A) right to intervene (de novo review) |
| Whether permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) should be allowed | Court failed to properly weigh prejudice/delay and child’s best interest; intervention warranted | Agency cited concerns from home study and that permanency via TCJFS served child’s best interest | Denied — no abuse of discretion; court properly considered prejudice and best interest |
| Whether appellants were prevented from becoming in loco parentis by TCJFS / trial court failed to hear relevant evidence | Appellants contend they were barred from contact and thus could not show in loco parentis | Record shows appellants did not raise this at hearing or proffer testimony | Denied as raised on appeal — issue waived for failure to raise below |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (1986) (extended family members are not entitled to party status absent a legal custodial role or having stood in loco parentis)
- Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010) (intervention as of right under Civ.R.24(A)(2) requires a legal interest in the action)
- State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 331 (1993) (definition and meaning of in loco parentis — assuming parental rights and duties)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (parental rights are subject to the child’s best interest)