In re K.L.

[Cite as In re K.L., 2015-Ohio-4598.]
COURT OF APPEALS
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
K.L. AND A.S. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Case No. 2015 AP 040016
OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Tuscarawas County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,
Case No. 2015 JN 018
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 3, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For Appellee - TCJFS For Appellant - Maternal Grandmother
JEFF M. KIGGANS PAUL HERVEY
Tuscarawas County Job/Family Services Fitzpatrick, Zimmerman & Rose Co., L.P.A.
389 16th Street, SW P.O. Box 1014,
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
For Mother For Paternal Grandmother
JOHN GARTRELL SCOTT MASTIN
Tuscarawas County Public Defender's Off. 108 East High Avenue, Suite 3
153 North Broadway New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
For Father Guardian ad Litem
DOUGLAS JACKSON KAREN DUMMERMUTH
P.O. Box 188 349 East High Avenue
Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683 P.O. Box 494
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Teresa Swartzentruber ("Grandmother") appeals the March 19,
2015 Judgment Entry entered by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, which denied her motion to intervene in the
abuse/neglect/dependency action involving her minor grandchildren. Grandmother also
appeals the April 16, 2015 Judgment Entry entered by that same court which denied her
motion for custody of her grandchildren. Appellee is Tuscarawas County Job and Family
Services ("TCJFS").
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Abigail Swartzentruber ("Mother") and Kyle Litman ("Father") are the
biological parents of K.L. (dob 4/27/10), A.L. (dob 11/2/12), and A.S. (dob 5/19/14). The
parties have never been married. Grandmother is the maternal grandmother of the
minor children.
{¶3} In June, 2014, after receiving reports concerning unexplained injuries
sustained by A.L., TCJFS began an investigation of the family. TCJFS closed the case
in September, 2014. On November 25, 2014, A.L died of cardiac arrest under what was
deemed to be suspicious circumstances. At the time of his death, A.L. and his siblings
were living with Mother and her boyfriend, Adam Such. Medical providers contacted
TCJFS. TCJFS removed the other two children from Mother's home. The results of the
autopsy revealed evidence of blunt force trauma, including multiple scalp bruises at the
top of A.L.'s head. A.L. had over 20 bruises of varying ages over his body.
{¶4} Grandmother filed a motion to intervene and a motion for custody. The
trial court denied the motion to intervene via Judgment Entry filed March 19, 2015. A
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 3
hearing on the motion for custody was conducted on March 25, 2015, in conjunction
with the dispositional hearing.
{¶5} At the hearing, Gabrielle Weingarth, the TCJFS ongoing case manager
assigned to the family, testified Grandmother acknowledged K.L. told her Adam Such
had thrown him and slammed him into a wall. Appellant informed Weingarth she did not
know whether to believe K.L. as she believed Father could have put the thought into the
boy's head. While Mother was pregnant with A.S., Mother told Grandmother Adam
Such was verbally abusive and controlling. Weingarth added Grandmother enables
Mother and makes excuses for her behavior. Weingarth expressed concerns regarding
how Grandmother raised Mother and how that would affect her ability to parent her
grandchildren.
{¶6} The testimony also revealed Grandmother's live-in boyfriend, Donald
Sullivan, had a history of domestic violence and other criminal convictions directly
involving alcohol. Sullivan continued to consume alcohol on a daily basis. Grandmother
admitted Sullivan was an alcoholic, but did not see a problem with his daily alcohol
consumption. Grandmother’s ex-husband, Mother’s father, was also an alcoholic.
Grandmother has a history of depression and anxiety. She has been prescribed
numerous medications for pain, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
{¶7} Via Judgment Entry filed April 16, 2015, the trial court denied
Grandmother's motion for custody. The trial court found Grandmother was aware the
children were living in an abusive environment yet did nothing to protect them. The trial
court further found Mother's "mental health pathology [was] clearly reflective of the life
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 4
she lived growing up with" Grandmother. The trial court concluded Grandmother was
not an appropriate custodian for the children.
{¶8} It is from this judgment entry Grandmother appeals, raising the following
assignments of error:
{¶9} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ALLOW THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER TO
INTERVENE.
{¶10} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO PLACE
THE CHILDREN WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER OR TO ALLOW
VISITATION WITH HER."
I
{¶11} In her first assignment of error, Grandmother contends the trial court erred
and abused its discretion in failing to allow her to intervene.
{¶12} Civ.R. 24governs intervention and states the following:
(A) Intervention of right
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in
an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to
intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is
so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the
applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
(B) Permissive intervention
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 5
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an
action: (1) when a statute of this state confers a conditional right to
intervene; or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action
have a question of law or fact in common. When a party to an action relies
for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order
administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon
any regulation, order, requirement or agreement issued or made pursuant
to the statute or executive order, the officer or agency upon timely
application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In exercising its
discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
{¶13} To the extent Grandmother’s motion to intervene was based on
subsection (A), this Court’s standard of review is de novo. In re Young, Stark App.
No.2008CA00134, 2008-Ohio-5435 at para. 13. To the extent the motion sought
permissive intervention under subsection (B), our standard of review is abuse its
discretion. Id. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's
decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law
or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶14} The leading case on grandparent intervention is In re Schmidt (1986), 25
Ohio St.3d 331, 496 N.E.2d 952. In Schmidt, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the
issue of whether grandparents should be permitted to intervene as of right under Civ.R.
24(A). The Schmidt Court held the grandparents had no right to intervene because they
“never obtained, through statute, court order, or other means, any legal right to custody
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 6
or visitation with their grandson.” Id. at 336. (Emphasis sic.) The Schmidt Court
determined the grandparents did not have any legal interest in the care and custody of
their grandson, finding their “desire for custody or visitation cannot be construed as a
legal right to custody or visitation,” as their “concern for their grandson's welfare cannot
be construed as a legal interest that falls within the scope of Civ.R. 24(A).” Id.
{¶15} The Schmidt Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the grandparents' motion to intervene, explaining:
As discussed above, the Smiths had no legal right to custody or
visitation with their grandson, and they held no legally protectable interest
that was related to Robert, Jr.'s care and custody. Additionally, the
emphasis placed on family unity by R.C. Chapter 2151 is limited almost
exclusively to the nuclear family; and, unless a child is orphaned or
abandoned, or an adult from the child's extended family in some manner
has filled the role of parent, R.C. Chapter 2151 does not require that
extended family members be made parties to custody proceedings. The
record does not indicate that the Smiths ever stood in loco parentis to
Robert, Jr. or that they ever exercised significant parental control over, or
assumed any parental duties for the benefit of, their grandson. Id. at 337.
{¶16} Grandmother contends because Mother and K.L. lived with her while
Mother was still a minor, she stood in loco parentis to her grandchildren. Grandmother
adds she was a party to the child support action for the benefit of K.L. The record is
devoid of any evidence which establishes Grandmother had any legal right or interest in
the care and custody of her grandchildren. Further, there is no record evidence to
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 7
support Grandmother’s claim she stood in loco parentis to her grandchildren or that she
ever “exercised significant parental control over, or assumed any parental duties for the
benefit” of them.
{¶17} Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court did not err or abuse its
discretion in denying Grandmother’s motion to intervene.
{¶18} Grandmother’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II
{¶19} In her second assignment of error, Grandmother asserts the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to place the children with her or grant her visitation.
{¶20} A trial court's determination on legal custody should not be overruled
absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Stull v. Richland Cty. Children Services, 5th
Dist. Nos. 11 CA47, 11CA48, 2012–Ohio–738.An abuse of discretion is when the trial
court's judgment is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore,supra. In this
type of dispositional hearing, the focus must be the best interest of the child. In re C.R.,
108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006–Ohio–1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188;In re Nawrocki, 5th Dist.
No.2004–CA–0028, 2004–Ohio–4208.
{¶21} When a grandparent seeks legal custody, the inquiry focuses on what is in
the best interest of the child. In re A.C.,12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-12-105, 2007–
Ohio–3350. “While ‘blood relationship’ and ‘family unity’ are factors to consider when
determining a child's best interest, neither one is controlling.” In re S.K.G., 12th Dist.
Clermont No. CA2008–11–105, 2009–Ohio–4673, ¶ 12.
{¶22} The testimony at the dispositional hearing revealed the children are doing
well in foster care. The testimony confirmed Grandmother would not be an appropriate
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 8
custodian for her grandchildren. Grandmother lives with a man who has a long history
of violence involving alcohol and yet he continues to consume alcohol on a daily basis.
Grandmother does not see this habit as problematic. Further, Grandmother enabled
Mother and made excuses for her. Grandmother, herself, was unsuccessful as parent.
More importantly, Grandmother refused to believe K.L. when he stated Mother’s
boyfriend had thrown him and slammed him into a wall.
{¶23} Based upon the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Grandmother’s motion for custody.
{¶24} Grandmother also maintains the trial court abused its discretion in denying
her visitation with her grandchildren.
{¶25} Grandparents generally have no legal rights of access to their
grandchildren. Wood v. Palumba, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 05AP100071, 2006–Ohio–
3030, ¶ 24; In re Fusik, 4th Dist. Athens No. 02CA16, 2002–Ohio–4410, citing In re
Whitaker, 36 Ohio St.3d 213, 214, 522 N.E.2d 563 (1988); In re Martin, 68 Ohio St.3d
250, 626 N.E.2d 82 (1994). The Ohio Supreme Court has held grandparents have no
constitutional right of association with their grandchildren. Wood, supra; See In re
Schmidt, supra at 336.
{¶26} Given the trauma these children experienced, we find the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying visitation with any of their relatives, including
Grandmother.
{¶27} Grandmother’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2015 AP 040016 9
{¶28} The judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Wise, J. concur