In re W.M.
2017 Ohio 5639
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 2012: Geauga County JFS filed a dependency complaint for W.M. (7) and G.M. (6) based on parental neglect, father’s substance abuse/violence, and mother’s inability to care for herself.
- 2013–2014: Court awarded temporary then final custody to mother; father’s visitation suspended and he later ceased participating; case closed in August 2014 after father became “unavailable.”
- Mother and children moved to Indiana in August 2014 and have remained there.
- August 1, 2016: Stephanie Maloney (father’s ex-wife, non‑biological to children) and Brittany Maloney (Stephanie’s adult daughter; appellants) filed a combined motion to intervene and for visitation; appellants previously filed a separate companionship-rights complaint dismissed for lack of standing.
- Trial court denied the 2016 motion, finding appellants failed to meet Civ.R. 24 requirements (grounds, pleading, timeliness), and that R.C. 3109.051(B) did not apply to dependency proceedings.
- Appellants appealed; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of intervention; the visitation claim was treated as moot given the intervention ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion to intervene for technical defects | Appellants argued court improperly dismissed sua sponte without notice and should allow intervention for visitation | Court argued appellants failed Civ.R. 24(C) (no grounds pleaded, no accompanying pleading), timeliness, and did not invoke a statutory right | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; motion failed mandatory Civ.R. 24 requirements and was untimely |
| Whether appellants had standing to seek visitation under R.C. 3109.051(B) | Appellants claimed relationship to children conferred right to seek visitation | Court responded R.C. 3109.051(B) applies only to divorce/dissolution/legal separation/child‑support proceedings, not dependency cases | Not reached on merits (moot); trial court correctly treated statutory basis as inapplicable in dependency context |
| Whether intervention was timely under Civ.R. 24 | Appellants argued delay caused by mother cutting off contact after move to Indiana | Court relied on Meagher factors: case resolved years earlier; appellants knew of proceedings in 2013; granting intervention would prejudice original parties | Denial affirmed: intervention untimely; prejudice and delay supported denial |
| Whether failure to specify type of intervention (right vs. permissive) was fatal | Appellants did not specify or allege requisite statutory or interest-based grounds | Court noted intervention-as-of-right requires statute or protectable interest; permissive intervention requires statute or common question of law/fact | Denial affirmed: appellants alleged neither; even permissive intervention would be reviewed for abuse of discretion and was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn, 72 Ohio St.3d 106 (1995) (sua sponte dismissal allowed when complaint is frivolous or claimant obviously cannot prevail)
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143 (1995) (motion to intervene must be accompanied by a pleading per Civ.R. 24(C))
- State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 121 Ohio St.3d 507 (2009) (same: denial appropriate where required pleading absent)
- Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118 (2002) (timeliness of intervention reviewed for abuse of discretion; prejudice from relitigation is a factor)
- State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist Church v. Meagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 501 (1998) (sets factors for timeliness of intervention)
- State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (2011) (standard of review for intervention is abuse of discretion)