Background
D.D. is a child born in August 2023 to married biological parents, A.D. (mother) and D.D. (father). The paternal grandmother, J.S., filed a complaint in Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court in July 2024 seeking custody, alleging the child had been in her care since May 2024. The Domestic Relations Court initially granted her temporary custody, but a magistrate subsequently found all three adults — mother, father, and grandmother — unsuitable as residential and legal custodians. The magistrate’s findings regarding grandmother included her history of crack cocaine use, her inability to recall when she had last used drugs, the prior removal of her seven children by child protective services in 2007–2008, an extensive criminal history, and father’s reports of physical abuse during his own childhood. The Domestic Relations Court adopted the magistrate’s decision and transferred the case to the Muskingum County Juvenile Court under R.C. 3109.06.
In December 2024, Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services (MCACPS) moved for emergency removal of the child from grandmother’s custody after grandmother and her husband tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines. The Juvenile Court granted emergency temporary custody to MCACPS. Meanwhile, the biological parents, who had not been participating in earlier proceedings, began engaging with a reunification case plan and made significant progress. In March 2025, grandmother and her husband filed a joint motion to intervene as parties under Civ.R. 24(B) and Juv.R. 2(BB), arguing their participation would assist the court in gathering information and allow grandmother to file a motion for legal custody. The Juvenile Court denied the motion by amended entry on August 18, 2025, and grandmother appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the Juvenile Court’s denial of the motion to intervene, finding no abuse of discretion. The court reviewed the denial under the permissive intervention standard of Civ.R. 24(B), which vests discretion in the trial court to permit intervention when the applicant’s claim shares a common question of law or fact with the main action, provided intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of the original parties’ rights. The appellate court noted that grandmother had argued on appeal for intervention of right under Civ.R. 24(A)(2), but her motion below was filed solely under the permissive intervention rule, limiting the scope of appellate review to whether the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably.
The court acknowledged that grandmother had stood in loco parentis to the child for several months, which in certain contexts — such as permanent custody proceedings — can support grandparent intervention. However, it distinguished this case, which originated as a parentage and custody complaint filed by grandmother herself rather than as a permanent custody action by the agency. Critically, the Domestic Relations Court had already found grandmother unsuitable, and she did not appeal that certification. The Juvenile Court had before it the complete certified record from the Domestic Relations Court, live testimony from an MCACPS caseworker, and a guardian ad litem report questioning the accuracy of facts grandmother had presented to gain initial custody. Given that the biological parents were married and progressing well on their reunification plan, and that grandmother and her husband had recently tested positive for methamphetamine and failed to engage in a drug treatment program, the appellate court held the Juvenile Court’s denial was supported by sound reasoning and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A grandparent’s prior in loco parentis status does not automatically entitle her to intervene in a juvenile dependency proceeding, particularly where she has already been adjudicated unsuitable by a domestic relations court and did not appeal that finding.
- Under Civ.R. 24(B), permissive intervention is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a juvenile court may deny intervention where the evidence — including a positive methamphetamine test, a history of drug abuse, prior removal of the grandparent’s own children, and significant parental progress on a reunification plan — supports doing so.
- An appellant cannot expand her theory of intervention on appeal; grandmother’s attempt to argue intervention of right under Civ.R. 24(A)(2) was foreclosed because her trial court motion was filed only under Civ.R. 24(B).
- A prior unchallenged finding of parental unsuitability carries forward and can weigh heavily against a grandparent seeking party status in subsequent juvenile proceedings involving the same child.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the limits of grandparent standing in Ohio juvenile court proceedings and the practical consequences of failing to contest an adverse unsuitability finding. Attorneys representing grandparents or other third-party caregivers should take care to appeal unfavorable custody determinations at each stage, as those findings can foreclose later efforts to participate as parties in related juvenile proceedings. The opinion also reinforces that permissive intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) is genuinely discretionary — courts are not required to grant grandparents party status simply because they previously cared for a child or wish to present evidence.
For child welfare practitioners, the case underscores how a grandparent’s own conduct during proceedings — here, a methamphetamine-positive test while serving as temporary custodian — can decisively undermine subsequent efforts to obtain party standing. Where biological parents are actively participating and making progress on a reunification plan, courts have ample reason to deny third-party intervention that could complicate or delay the adjudication of parental rights.