In re T.H.
2016 Ohio 7310
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- T.H., Jr. was born July 9, 2013, with marijuana and opiates in his system; mother admitted prenatal drug use. MCCS filed an abuse/neglect/dependency complaint and placed the child in foster care the same month.
- Both parents had histories of substance abuse; MCCS created reunification-focused case plans for each parent. Psychological evaluations (Dr. Beazel and Dr. Wolfgang) offered conflicting views on parents’ fitness.
- Foster parents (certified) cared for the child from shortly after birth and sought legal custody after ~22 months, filing a motion to intervene and a motion for legal custody.
- The juvenile court allowed permissive intervention, held hearings on legal custody, and ultimately granted legal custody to the foster parents while awarding the biological parents supervised visitation.
- Father appealed the trial court’s grant of the foster parents’ motion to intervene, arguing abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Foster Parents / MCCS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing foster parents to intervene under Civ.R. 24(B) and Juv.R. 2(Y) | Intervention was improper and prejudiced father’s parental rights | Foster parents had acted in loco parentis for ~2 years; intervention was timely and in the child’s best interests to pursue permanency | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion; intervention was in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Noggle, 67 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1993) (definition and effect of in loco parentis)
- In re Zhang, 135 Ohio App.3d 350 (Ohio App.) (juvenile court discretion to name parties, including foster parents)
- In re Franklin, 88 Ohio App.3d 277 (Ohio App.) (procedural device allowing courts to include necessary parties to fully litigate issues)