2018 Ohio 49
Oh. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Jackson2018Background
- Jackson County JFS filed neglect/dependency and temporary/emergency custody complaint for child T.S.; child placed in foster care after emergency custody granted.
- Grandparents Daniel and Elizabeth Starr filed (1) a motion for temporary and legal custody under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) and (2) a motion to intervene as parties (presumed under Civ.R. 24).
- Juvenile court denied the Starrs' motion to intervene; the Starrs appealed that denial before adjudication or disposition on their custody motion occurred.
- The Starrs argued grandparents have statutory and in loco parentis bases to intervene and that denial affected a substantial right, making the order final and appealable.
- The appellate court considered whether it had jurisdiction under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding) or (B)(4) (provisional remedy) and ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Starrs) | Defendant's Argument (Agency/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of motion to intervene is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) as affecting a "substantial right" in a special proceeding | Statutes relating to relatives in juvenile cases and their in loco parentis status give grandparents a legal/protectable right to custody or to be parties, so denial affects a substantial right | Grandparents have no constitutional, common-law, or statutory right to custody or visitation; juvenile rules do not confer an absolute right to intervene | Denial is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2); grandparents have no "substantial right" to intervene |
| Whether denial of intervention is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) as denial of a provisional remedy | Intervention sought to participate in custody determination and protect custody claim; appealable under provisional-remedy theory | Motion to intervene was not for an ancillary/provisional purpose attending another proceeding within the case, so it is not a provisional remedy | Denial did not grant/deny a provisional remedy and is not appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) |
| Whether Civ.R. 24 or juvenile rules create a procedural right to intervene that makes the denial appealable | Civ.R. 24 provides guidance and sometimes recognizes a right to intervene; Starrs relied on Civ.R. 24 procedure | Juvenile Rules govern juvenile proceedings and do not provide an intervention right like Civ.R. 24; Civ.R. 24 may be guidance but does not create a "substantial right" in juvenile cases | Civ.R. 24 may guide juvenile courts but does not confer a substantial right to intervene for purposes of final-appealability in juvenile cases |
| Whether in loco parentis status entitles grandparents to intervention as of right | Starrs claimed they stood in loco parentis and thus had a right to be joined | Precedent shows in loco parentis may be a discretionary factor for the juvenile court but does not create an absolute legal right to intervene | In loco parentis is a factor the court may consider but does not alone create a legal right to intervene or make the denial appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331 (recognizes grandparents have no constitutional or common-law right to custody; in loco parentis noted as discretionary factor)
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 112 Ohio St.3d 514 (intervention may be appealable when sought for an ancillary/provisional purpose; defines "ancillary" scope)
- In re H.W., 114 Ohio St.3d 65 (explains Juv.R. 2(Y) and limits on who is a party in juvenile proceedings)
- In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 (classifies juvenile termination/related custody proceedings as special proceedings)
- State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 97 Ohio St.3d 78 (final-order requirement: orders must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) when applicable)
- In re C.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 231 (defines "substantial right" as a legal right enforceable under constitution, statute, common law, or rule of procedure)