In re R.R.
2017 Ohio 8928
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Athens Cty. Children Services filed a September 2016 juvenile complaint alleging R.B., a newborn, tested positive for drugs; agency obtained emergency custody and later temporary custody after dependency was found.
- In December 2016 the agency placed R.B. with his maternal aunt, Amber Welsh, as a kinship placement while the agency retained temporary custody and reunification remained the permanency goal.
- In March 2017 the agency proposed an amended case plan to permit off‑ground visitation; one week later Welsh filed (1) a motion to intervene (Juv.R.2(Y) / Civ.R.24(B)), (2) affidavit, (3) motion to modify custody to award her permanent legal custody, and (4) objections to the amended case plan.
- At an April 24, 2017 hearing the juvenile court denied Welsh’s motion to intervene (oral ruling) and approved the agency’s move to off‑ground visitation; a later journal entry reiterated denial of party status and deemed her filings improper.
- Welsh appealed the denial of intervention; the court considered whether the order was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 and concluded it was not because kinship/foster providers have no substantial right to intervene and Welsh did not seek intervention for an ancillary/provisional purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s denial of Welsh’s motion to intervene is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (affects a substantial right in a special proceeding) | Welsh: denial affects her substantial right to participate and be heard; she sought party status to protect the child in ongoing custody matters | Agency: kinship providers/foster parents have no constitutional, statutory, or common‑law right to intervene; Juv.R.2(Y) does not include kinship providers as parties absent court designation | Held: No. Kinship/foster providers do not have a substantial right to intervene; the order is not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) |
| Whether Civ.R.24 creates a standalone substantial right to intervene in juvenile proceedings governed by the Juvenile Rules | Welsh: reliance on Civ.R.24 (and court guidance applying Civ.R.24) to support a right to intervene | Agency: juvenile rules (Juv.R.2(Y)) govern party status; Civ.R.24 at most guides the juvenile court’s discretion and does not create a substantial right for kinship providers | Held: Civ.R.24 may guide Juv.R.2(Y) but does not confer a substantial right for kinship/foster providers such that denial becomes a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) |
| Whether denial of intervention is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) (denial of a provisional remedy / ancillary proceeding) | Welsh: (implicit) intervention was necessary to protect her asserted interests and contest dispositional actions now | Agency: Welsh sought full party status to litigate the underlying custody issues, not to obtain an ancillary/provisional remedy; intervention was not sought for an ancillary proceeding | Held: No. Welsh sought to be a party to the underlying proceeding (not to aid an ancillary/provisional matter), so denial did not grant/deny a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adams, 873 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio 2007) (juvenile termination/child custody actions are special proceedings)
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 861 N.E.2d 519 (Ohio 2007) (denial of intervention may be appealable only when intervention seeks an ancillary/provisional purpose)
- In re H.W., 868 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio 2007) (civil rules may guide juvenile procedure when not inconsistent; courts may look to Civ.R.24 for guidance)
- In re C.B., 951 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 2011) (substantial right means a legal right enforceable under constitution, statute, common law, or rule of procedure)
- In re Schmidt, 496 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 1986) (grandparents/foster parents lack automatic legal interest to intervene under Civ.R.24(A))
- State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 776 N.E.2d 101 (Ohio 2002) (an order is final appealable only if it meets R.C.2505.02 and Civ.R.54(B) when applicable)