In re L.M.
2021 Ohio 1630
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Preble County Children Services (PCCS) obtained emergency custody and temporary custody of two grandchildren, Li.M. (born 2019) and La.M. (born 2020), after removal from their parents for drug-related issues.
- Maternal grandmother (Grandmother) moved to intervene in each juvenile-custody matter and also sought legal custody; both motions lacked a pleading as required by Civ.R. 24(C)/Civ.R. 7(A).
- At the hearing Grandmother testified she occasionally assisted with and provided supplies for Li.M. but was not the primary caregiver; she had never cared for or seen La.M. after birth.
- The juvenile court denied both motions to intervene, finding Grandmother had no statutory or judicially created legal right and had not stood in loco parentis to either child.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding (1) Grandmother’s failure to attach the required pleading under Civ.R. 24(C) alone justified denial, and (2) on the merits she did not satisfy the requirements for intervention of right (Civ.R. 24(A)) or permissive intervention (Civ.R. 24(B)) because she did not stand in loco parentis.
Issues
| Issue | Grandmother's Argument | PCCS / Juvenile Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Civ.R. 24(C) (pleading requirement) | Motion to intervene was sufficient without a Civ.R.7(A) pleading; substantive facts should control | Civ.R.24(C) requires an accompanying pleading; failure is fatal | Denial affirmed; failure to attach required pleading justified denial alone |
| Intervention of right under Civ.R. 24(A) | As grandmother she has an interest and should be allowed to intervene to obtain custody | Mere desire for custody/visitation does not create a legal interest; no prior statutory or court-created right | Denial affirmed; no legal interest shown and Civ.R.24(A) elements not met |
| Permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) / in loco parentis | She filled parental role (in loco parentis) and thus permissive intervention was warranted | Testimony showed only occasional assistance, not significant parental control or duties | Denial affirmed; Grandmother did not stand in loco parentis and permissive intervention not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (Ohio 1986) (a grandparent's desire for custody/visitation is not itself a legal interest under Civ.R.24)
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 2007) (the law does not give grandparents inherent legal rights solely from the family relationship)
- State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 121 Ohio St.3d 507 (Ohio 2009) (denial of intervention may be affirmed where movant failed to file the pleading required by Civ.R.24(C))
- State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2003) (motions to intervene denied for noncompliance with Civ.R.24(C))
- State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 2011) (Civ.R.24 should be construed liberally in favor of intervention, but procedural requirements remain enforceable)