Court Opinion

ID: 9893800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 17:09:00.770462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:44.119050
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re T.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3929.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                          WARREN COUNTY

 IN RE:                                         :

          T.L.C., et al.                        :     CASE NOS. CA2023-03-031
                                                                CA2023-04-034
                                                :
                                                               OPINION
                                                :              10/30/2023

                                                :

                                                :

             APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                               JUVENILE DIVISION
                       Case Nos. 22-C000193 and 22-C000194

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kirsten Brandt, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Kevin D. Hughes, for appellant.

Mother, pro se.

Father, pro se.

        S. POWELL, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant ("Grandmother") appeals the decisions of the Warren County Court

of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, dismissing her two motions seeking to obtain legal

custody of her two grandchildren, Tommy and Allie, upon finding both motions moot given
                                                                                  Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                                         CA2023-04-034

that permanent custody of the children had since been granted to Warren County Children

Services ("WCCS").1          For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the juvenile court's

decisions.

                                    Facts and Procedural History

        {¶ 2} On November 18, 2022, Grandmother filed two motions seeking to obtain

legal custody of her two grandchildren, Tommy, born on August 14, 2018, and Allie, born

on June 16, 2020. Grandmother's motions were given Case Nos. 22-C000193 and 22-

C000194. There is no dispute that Grandmother was living with her daughter, the children's

mother ("Mother"), at the time she moved for legal custody of the children. There is also no

dispute that, over two years prior to Grandmother filing for legal custody of the children,

both children had been removed from Grandmother's care and placed in WCCS' temporary

custody due to concerns regarding Grandmother's substance abuse. This occurred after

Grandmother twice tested positive for suboxone, a substance for which Grandmother did

not have a valid prescription.2 The children's removal from Grandmother's care occurred

approximately two weeks after the children had been removed from Mother's care and a

safety plan was initiated naming Grandmother as the children's caregiver. This ultimately

resulted in the juvenile court adjudicating both children dependent on November 5, 2020.

The children's adjudications were given Case Nos. 20-D000058 and 20-D000059.

        {¶ 3} Upon receiving Grandmother's two legal custody motions, the trial court

1. We note that, for purposes of privacy and readability, we will refer to the two children at issue in this case
by using the fictitious names Tommy and Allie. We additionally note that, because this appeal originated with
Grandmother filing her two motions for legal custody of the children, WCCS is not a party to this case.

2. "Suboxone is the commercial name for buprenorphine combined with naloxone." State v. Doles, 4th Dist.
Athens No. 16CA5, 2017-Ohio-437, ¶ 11, fn. 2. Suboxone is a prescription medication that is used to treat
opioid dependence "that works just like an opiate, but it does not have side effects or make a person sick like
a long-term opiate user who, notwithstanding the dosage of opiates they take, still experiences pain and
cravings." In re M.W., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-524, 2011-Ohio-6392, ¶ 15. Suboxone is a schedule III
controlled substance. See State v. May, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-01-004, 2019-Ohio-4513, ¶ 25 (noting
that suboxone is a schedule III controlled substance).
                                                      -2-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                            CA2023-04-034

issued decisions in both cases staying the proceedings until after the children's

"abuse/neglect/dependency" cases could reach their conclusion. This included the juvenile

court needing to decide the two pending motions for permanent custody that WCCS had

filed on October 17, 2022. The juvenile court held a two-day hearing on WCCS' permanent

custody motions on January 23 and February 7, 2023. During this hearing, the juvenile

court heard testimony from a total of eight witnesses. This included testimony from both

Mother and the children's father ("Father"), as well as from the children's foster mother.

Shortly thereafter, on February 16, 2023, the juvenile court issued separate decisions in

Case Nos. 20-D000058 and 20-D000059 granting permanent custody of the children to

WCCS. In so doing, the juvenile court found the children's only chance at stability was if

they were placed in the permanent custody of WCCS. One week later, on February 23,

2023, the juvenile court issued decisions in Case Nos. 22-C000193 and 22-C000194

dismissing Grandmother's two legal custody motions as moot given that WCCS since

obtained permanent custody of the children.

       {¶ 4} On March 2, 2023, Mother filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court's

decisions granting permanent custody of the children to WCCS. Approximately three weeks

later, on March 22, 2023, Grandmother filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court's

decisions dismissing as moot her motions for legal custody of the children. Several months

later, on August 8, 2023, this court issued a decision affirming the juvenile court's decisions

granting permanent custody of the children to WCCS. In re A.C., 12th Dist. Warren Nos.

CA2023-03-023 and CA2023-03-024, 2023-Ohio-2735. In so holding, this court noted that

Mother had an unhealthy, "codependent relationship" with Grandmother. Id. at ¶ 31. This

court also noted that, according to the testimony offered by Mother at the hearing held on

WCCS' motions for permanent custody, Grandmother was "struggl[ing] with drug use at the

                                              -3-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                           CA2023-04-034

time of the permanent custody hearing." Id.

                Grandmother's Appeal and Single Assignment of Error

      {¶ 5} Grandmother's appeal now properly before this court for decision,

Grandmother has raised one assignment of error for review. In her single assignment of

error, Grandmother argues the juvenile court erred by dismissing her two legal custody

motions as moot. To support this claim, Grandmother argues the juvenile court violated her

procedural due process rights by staying the proceedings on her motions until after the

children's "abuse/neglect/dependency" cases could reach their conclusion.            This is

because, according to Grandmother, the principles underlying her procedural due process

rights required the juvenile court to give her an opportunity to be heard and present

evidence in support of her legal custody motions before the juvenile court could grant

permanent custody of the children to WCCS. We disagree.

      {¶ 6} "The fundamental requisites of due process of law in any proceeding are

notice and the opportunity to be heard." In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶

17. This we can all agree. Grandmother, however, was not a party to either of the children's

permanent custody cases. Grandmother had also never expressly moved to intervene in

the children's permanent custody cases under Civ.R. 24(B).           "The requirements of

procedural due process only apply to protected liberty and property interests." CT Ohio

Portsmouth, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-588, 2020-Ohio-

5091, ¶ 29. "There is no question that parents have a fundamental and constitutionally

protected liberty interest in choosing how to manage their own children." In re Skinner, 4th

Dist. Adams No. 93CA547, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 1323, *6 (Mar. 23, 1994).

      {¶ 7} A child's grandparents, however, do not have a fundamental and

constitutionally protected liberty interest in choosing how to manage their grandchildren "as

                                             -4-
                                                                      Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                             CA2023-04-034

that would interfere with those rights already vested in the parents." Id. This holds true

even though the grandparents hold a close blood relation to their grandchildren. This is

because, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, "[t]he law does not provide grandparents

with inherent legal rights based simply on the family relationship." In re H.W., 114 Ohio

St.3d 65, 2007-Ohio-2879, ¶ 9. Therefore, because the requirements of procedural due

process only apply to protected liberty and property interests, something which

grandparents do not inherently have with respect to their grandchildren, the principles of

procedural due process did not require the juvenile court to give Grandmother an

opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of her two motions for legal custody

before it could grant permanent custody of the children to WCCS. Grandmother's claim

otherwise lacks merit.

       {¶ 8} Grandmother also argues the juvenile court erred by not, at the very least,

treating her two motions for legal custody of the children as Civ.R. 24(B) motions to

intervene in the children's underlying permanent custody proceedings. Civ.R. 24(B) sets

forth the rule regarding permissive intervention and states, in pertinent part, that upon timely

application, "anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action * * * when an applicant's

claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common." To support

this claim, Grandmother argues that the juvenile court "certainly could have" accepted her

legal custody motions as motions to intervene brought pursuant to Civ.R. 24(B) given her

clear interest in obtaining custody of the children.

       {¶ 9} Grandmother similarly argues, without any supporting authority, that the

juvenile court could have "simply joined" the four cases together—the two legal custody

cases proceeding under Case Nos. 22-C000193 and 22-C000194 with the two permanent

custody cases proceeding under Case Nos. 20-D000058 and 20-D000059—and "allowed

                                              -5-
                                                                    Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                           CA2023-04-034

[Grandmother] to be heard." Grandmother argues that either option would have been the

appropriate way for the juvenile court to proceed when deciding her motions, by giving her

"some level of courtesy" as a pro se litigant, especially when considering that the permanent

custody of her grandchildren was at stake. However, although we generally agree that

there were other routes the juvenile court could have taken when deciding how to proceed

with Grandmother's motions, which includes consolidating all four cases together under one

case number, the juvenile court did not err by proceeding in the manner that it did. We

reach this conclusion for two reasons.

       {¶ 10} First, there can be no dispute that Civ.R. 24(B) requires a motion seeking

permissive intervention be timely filed. In this case, however, even if we were to assume

the juvenile court should have construed Grandmother's legal custody motions as motions

to intervene, Grandmother filed those motions on November 18, 2022.                This was

approximately one month after WCCS had already moved for permanent custody of the

children, and over two years since the children were adjudicated dependent. The time for

Grandmother to move to intervene in the children's permanent custody cases had well since

passed and any such motions that Grandmother may have filed seeking to intervene would

have properly been denied as untimely. See State ex rel. Bell v. London, 12th Dist. Madison

Nos. CA2010-11-027 and CA2010-11-029, 2011-Ohio-3914, ¶ 66-68 (noting the factors to

be considered when determining the timeliness of a Civ.R. 24[B] motion to intervene include

"the point to which the action in which intervention is sought has progressed" and "the length

of time between the point at which the party who seeks to intervene knew or reasonably

should have known of his interest in the case").

       {¶ 11} Second, given its plain language, Civ.R. 24(C) clearly requires a motion to

intervene filed under Civ.R. 24(B) "to be accompanied by a pleading, as defined in Civ.R

                                             -6-
                                                                       Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                              CA2023-04-034

7(A), setting forth the claim or defense for which the intervention is sought." In re L.M., 12th

Dist. Preble Nos. CA2020-12-017 and CA2020-12-018, 2021-Ohio-1630, ¶ 23. In this case,

however, neither of Grandmother's two motions, had the juvenile court construed them as

such, were accompanied by the necessary pleadings required by Civ.R. 24(C).

Grandmother's two motions were instead basic, boilerplate legal custody motions setting

forth the various reasons Grandmother believed the children should be placed in her care.

This included Grandmother stating in one motion that she believed the children should be

placed with her because she has "been clean for 17 years with the help from medication."

Grandmother also argued the children should be placed with her because:

              I went thru a home study for CPS and I passed everything
              except I had my daughter (the baby's mom) living with me.
              She's been clean and in treatment since this all started. I feel
              CPS is now playing games with these babys (sic) lives and I
              need it to stop and allow me to get them so I can give them a
              stable life with everything they need!

       {¶ 12} But, even if this court were to assume Grandmother's claims regarding her

sobriety were true, "[t]he failure to comply with Civ.R. 24(C), standing alone, 'is grounds for

denying a motion to intervene.'" In re L.M. at ¶ 24, quoting In re Adoption of K., 6th Dist.

Wood No. WD-18-018, 2018-Ohio-3082, ¶ 9-10. A party's failure to file a pleading in

compliance with Civ.R. 24(C) is, in fact, "'fatal to a motion to intervene.'" Id. at ¶ 25, quoting

Sutton v. Sutton, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28393, 2017-Ohio-5559, ¶ 8. Such a result is

certainly warranted in this case. See, e.g., Id. ("because Grandmother failed to comply with

Civ.R. 24[C] when filing either of her two motions to intervene, it would have been proper

for the juvenile court to deny Grandmother's motions on that basis alone"); and Waynesburg

Holdings, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00015, 2019-Ohio-

4764, ¶ 45, ("the trial court properly denied appellants' motion [to intervene] for failure to

comply with Civil Rule 24[C] on that basis alone"). To the extent Grandmother claims

                                               -7-
                                                                     Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                            CA2023-04-034

otherwise, such argument is meritless.

       {¶ 13} In so holding, we note the well-established principle that "[t]his court will not

usurp the power of the juvenile court to control its own docket." In re A.B., 12th Dist. Brown

No. CA2016-11-021, 2017-Ohio-5776, ¶ 31. We also note that, while it may be true that

Grandmother had been proceeding pro se, "litigants who appear pro se 'are held to the

same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.'" In re A.V., 12th Dist. Warren

Nos. CA2022-06-046 thru CA2022-06-049, 2022-Ohio-4719, ¶ 29, quoting Jones v.

Nichols, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-009, 2012-Ohio-4344, ¶ 23. This means that

pro se litigants, like Grandmother, "are presumed to have knowledge of the law and correct

legal procedures so that he or she remains subject to the same rules and procedures to

which represented litigants are bound." Id., citing Fikri v. Best Buy, Inc., 12th Dist. Warren

No. CA2013-06-051, 2013-Ohio-4869, ¶ 12.

       {¶ 14} That is to say, Grandmother was expected, like all pro se litigants before her,

"'to abide by the relevant rules of procedure and substantive laws, regardless of [her]

familiarity with the law.'" In re A.V. at ¶ 29, quoting Fontain v. H&R Cincy Properties, LLC,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-02-015, 2022-Ohio-1000, ¶ 26. This holds true even in legal

custody proceedings. See, e.g., In re Z.P., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104395, 2017-Ohio-

7397, ¶ 22 (noting that, "[i]n Ohio, pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the

law and of correct legal procedure, and are held to the same standard as all other litigants"

in an appeal challenging a juvenile court's decision to grant legal custody of a child to the

child's grandmother). This would include, for example, Grandmother filing a proper Civ.R.

24(B) motion to intervene that complied with the procedural requirements for filing such a

motion as set forth in Civ.R. 24(C). Again, to the extent Grandmother claims otherwise,

such argument is meritless.

                                              -8-
                                                                 Warren CA2023-03-031
                                                                        CA2023-04-034

                                      Conclusion

      {¶ 15} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no error in the juvenile court's

decision dismissing Grandmother's two legal custody motions as moot, Grandmother's

single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled. Therefore, having found no merit

to Grandmother's single assignment of error, Grandmother's appeal from the juvenile

court's decision dismissing as moot her motions for legal custody seeking to obtain legal

custody of her two grandchildren, Tommy and Allie, is denied.

      {¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.

      M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

                                           -9-