In re N.M.
2016 Ohio 7967
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- CCDCFS filed dependency and emergency temporary custody for grandchildren N.M. (b. 2010) and R.M. (b. 2013) after drug exposure at birth and an incident where mother left the children unsupervised; parents had substance-abuse issues.
- Magistrate adjudicated the children dependent and placed them in emergency temporary custody of CCDCFS in January 2015; later granted CCDCFS temporary custody and placed children in foster care.
- Grandfather (J.H.M.) repeatedly sought to participate: filed custody motions and three motions to intervene (two earlier motions denied during emergency/temporary phases; a third Civ.R. 24(B) motion filed April 1, 2016, during the permanent-custody phase).
- The juvenile court summarily denied the April 1, 2016 motion to intervene without a hearing; CCDCFS filed opposition after the denial.
- Grandfather submitted an affidavit claiming long-term, near-daily caregiving and that the children had resided with or near him for most of their lives (asserting in loco parentis/parential-control facts).
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the court abused its discretion by denying the motion to intervene without a hearing during the permanent-custody phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of grandparent's motion to intervene during permanent-custody phase is appealable | Grandfather: denial is final and appealable because it forecloses his only opportunity to be included in the proceeding | CCDCFS: res judicata and prior denials bar review; earlier denials were interlocutory | Appealable — denial during permanent-custody phase is a final, appealable order |
| Standard for permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) in custody cases | Grandfather: his claims overlap with main action (parental control/in loco parentis); court should consider whether intervention unduly delays or prejudices parties | CCDCFS: (implicitly) intervention not warranted; focus on suitability/relevance | Motion to intervene reviewed for abuse of discretion; court must consider whether intervention would prejudice or delay and whether the movant shows a common question of law/fact |
| Whether a hearing was required before denying intervention when movant alleges in loco parentis | Grandfather: factual assertions (care, control, parental duties) required development via hearing | CCDCFS: no developed record to support intervention; court summary denial acceptable | Court abused its discretion by summarily denying without a hearing; factual development required to assess in loco parentis and best interests |
| Whether granting intervention would amount to automatic entitlement to custody | Grandfather: seeks opportunity to be heard, not automatic custody | CCDCFS: concern about prematurely assessing suitability | Held: intervention is not automatic custody; permitting a hearing allows the court to develop record and then determine suitability and best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (2007) (denial of motion to intervene must be evaluated under R.C. 2505.02 to determine final-appealable-order status)
- In re Young Children, 119 Ohio St.3d 1442 (2008) (supreme court addressed conflict among appellate districts about appealability of denials of grandparents’ motions to intervene in permanent custody cases)
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (1986) (concurring opinion noting permissive intervention appropriate where grandparents have legally protectable interest, stood in loco parentis, or exercised significant parental control)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion and its application)