[Cite as In re D.D., 2026-Ohio-2379.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE D.D. Case No. CT2025-0105
Opinion And Judgment Entry
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division, Case No. 22430183
Judgment: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry: June 23, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; Craig R. Baldwin; David M. Gormley, Judges
APPEARANCES: Richard D. Hixson for Appellant-Grandmother, RONALD L. WELCH, JACOB J. WINSLOW for Appellee-Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services, ADAM O. JOHNSON for mother, ZACHARY DAUBENMIRE for father, SARAH WOSKE, Guardian ad Litem
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant grandmother, J.S., appeals the August 18, 2025 amended entry
of the Muskingum County Juvenile Court denying her motion to intervene. Appellee is
Muskingum County Adult and Child Protective Services ("MCACPS"). We affirm the trial
court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} This case involves a child, D.D., born in August 2023. Mother of the child
is A.D.; father is D.D. Mother and father are married and are the biological parents of the
child. Appellant is the paternal grandmother of the child.
{¶ 3} On July 31, 2024, appellant filed a complaint for parentage, allocation of
parental rights and responsibilities, and parenting time in the Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court (Case No. DE 2024-0458). Appellant also filed a verified
motion for temporary orders ex parte. Appellant alleged the child had been in her care
since May 2024; she sought a designation for the residential parent and legal custodian
of the child. By order filed July 31, 2024, the Domestic Relations Court designated
appellant as the temporary residential parent and legal custodian of the child; mother and
father were granted supervised parenting time with the child. Appellant and parents were
ordered to submit to random drug and alcohol testing at the request of the court and an
investigation of the parties was to be conducted by a court investigator.
{¶ 4} A hearing before a magistrate was held on October 24, 2024. By decision
filed November 4, 2024, the magistrate found mother, father, and appellant to be
unsuitable for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and unsuitable to be
the residential and legal custodian of the child. The magistrate noted appellant testified
she had been sober for a year and her drug of choice was crack cocaine; she could not
remember when she had last used drugs. Also, in 2007 and 2008, MCACPS removed
appellant's seven children from her custody; appellant has an extensive criminal history
with her last felony in 2017. The magistrate further noted the child's parents were
homeless and opposed custody to appellant. Father, appellant's son, reported multiple
incidents of physical abuse by appellant during his childhood; he expressed concerns of
appellant physically abusing the child of this action. By judgment entry filed November
21, 2024, the Domestic Relations Court approved and adopted the magistrate's decision
and transferred the matter under R.C. 3109.06 to the Muskingum County Juvenile Court
for further disposition (Case No. 22430183).
{¶ 5} The Juvenile Court accepted the case and a hearing was held on December
18, 2024. Only appellant and her husband appeared, along with MCACPS, mother and father did not. By judgment entry filed on the same date, the Juvenile Court continued
the temporary order of the Domestic Relations Court with appellant under the protective
supervision of MCACPS.
{¶ 6} On December 20, 2024, MCACPS filed a request for an ex parte order and
hearing to remove the child from appellant's custody because appellant and her husband
tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines. By ex parte order filed on the
same date, the Juvenile Court granted MCACPS emergency temporary custody of the
child. An emergency shelter care hearing was held on December 23, 2024. Again, only
appellant and her husband appeared, mother and father did not. By judgment entry filed
on the same date, temporary custody of the child remained with MCACPS.
{¶ 7} On January 13 and 14, 2025, the Juvenile Court appointed separate counsel
to represent appellant and her husband. Thereafter, a case plan was filed for the
biological parents of the child. A dispositional hearing was held on March 12, 2025.
Again, only appellant and her husband appeared, mother and father did not. By entry
filed March 13, 2025, the Juvenile Court continued the temporary custody of the child
with MCACPS.
{¶ 8} On March 24, 2025, appellant and her husband filed a joint motion to
intervene and be named parties to the case under Civ.R. 24(B) and Juv.R. 2(BB). A
hearing was held on July 29, 2025. Appellant, as well as mother and father, appeared for
this hearing. By amended entry filed August 18, 2025, the Juvenile Court denied the
motion and terminated court appointed counsel; the Juvenile Court deemed the entry a
final appealable order.
{¶ 9} Appellant filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 10} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
INTERVENE."
{¶ 11} In her sole assignment of error, appellant claims the Juvenile Court erred
in denying her motion to intervene. We disagree.
{¶ 12} On appeal, appellant argues in part intervention of right under Civ.R.
24(A)(2), but she filed her motion to intervene with the trial court under Civ.R. 24(B) and
Juv.R. 2(BB). Appellant's Brief at 9-11; Motion to Intervene filed March 24, 2025. Civ.R.
24(B) governs permissive intervention and states:
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. . . . 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} Juv.R. 2(BB) defines "party" as: "a child who is the subject of a juvenile court
proceeding, the child's spouse, if any, the child's parent or parents, or if the parent of a
child is a child, the parent of that parent, in appropriate cases, the child's custodian,
guardian, or guardian ad litem, the state, and any other person specifically designated by
the court."
{¶ 14} A decision on intervention under Civ.R. 24(B) is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. In re K.K.E., 2020-Ohio-6723, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.). "Abuse of discretion" means an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon,
Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 (1985). Most instances of abuse of discretion will result in
decisions that are simply unreasonable, rather than decisions that are unconscionable or
arbitrary. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment
Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990). An unreasonable decision is one backed by no sound
reasoning process which would support that decision. Id. "It is not enough that the
reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning
process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that
would support a contrary result." Id.
{¶ 15} In her appellate brief, appellant argues she stood in loco parentis of the child
since April/May 2024 and therefore she should have been granted permission to
intervene. Appellant's Brief at 11-13; In re J.W., 2007-Ohio-1419, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.), citing
In re Schmidt, 25 Ohio St.3d 331, 338 (1986) (Celebreeze, C.J., concurring) ("intervention
by grandparents in a permanent custody proceeding is appropriate where the
grandparents have stood in loco parentis to their grandchild, or where the grandparents
have exercised significant parental control over, or assumed parental duties for the
benefit of, their grandchild"). But this case is not a permanent custody action; it started
as a complaint for parentage and allocation of parental rights and responsibilities filed by
appellant in the Domestic Relations Division. While we acknowledge appellant stood in
loco parentis of the child for several months, the Domestic Relations Court specifically
found appellant to be unsuitable and certified the case to the Juvenile Court for
disposition. Appellant did not contest the finding of unsuitability as she did not appeal
the certification to the Juvenile Court. Robinson v. Robinson, 19 Ohio App.3d 323, 324 (1984) (a certification order is a sufficient basis for an appeal contesting the finding of
unsuitability).
{¶ 16} In their motion to intervene to the Juvenile Court, appellant and her
husband argued the following:
Movants state that allowing her to intervene will assist the Court in
receiving full and accurate information about the parties and the minor
child, so that the Court has all of the information necessary to make a
decision that is in the best interest of the minor child. Should the Court
allow one or both of the Movants to join as a party(s), Movants would be
able to conduct and provide discovery that will enhance the Court's
understanding of this matter. Allowing an intervention would also allow the
grandmother to file a motion for legal custody, which she feels is in the best
interest of the minor child.
{¶ 17} A hearing on the motion was held on July 29, 2025. The trial court heard
from a MCACPS caseworker who testified that appellant and her husband had temporary
custody of the child but then lost it because "[t]hey tested positive for meth." T. at 10.
The caseworker opined appellant and her husband were not "a realistic or feasible option
for custody" because appellant had "a long history with Children's Services." T. at 11.
Appellant had seven children removed from her custody. Id. Appellant also has a long
history with substance abuse and was recently discharged from a drug program due to
lack of engagement. T. at 12. MCACPS was working to reunify the child with mother and
father and the parents had made significant progress with their case plan. T. at 16-17. The caseworker explained it was not customary for the agency to work reunification with
grandparents while the parents of the child were making good progress on their case plan.
T. at 26. The guardian ad litem stated the parents were doing really well working the case
plan and did not see a need for appellant and her husband to intervene. T. at 32. In her
report, the guardian ad litem questioned appellant's facts presented to the Domestic
Relations Court to gain custody of the child; the facts were found to be "incomplete or
untrue." March 12, 2025 Guardian ad Litem Report and Recommendations at 4.
{¶ 18} The Juvenile Court had before it the entire certified record from the
Domestic Relations Court, testimony from the MCACPS caseworker, and a report and
opinion from the guardian ad litem. Appellant was found to be unsuitable and she and
her husband recently tested positive for meth; appellant failed to engage in a drug
program. The biological parents were married and making significant progress with their
case plan. The Juvenile Court has several sources to receive full and accurate information
about the parties and the child to gain a full understanding of the matter.
{¶ 19} Given the evidence before the Juvenile Court, we cannot say the Juvenile
Court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to intervene.
{¶ 20} The sole assignment of error is denied.
{¶ 21} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Muskingum County Juvenile Court, is AFFIRMED.
{¶ 22} Costs to Appellant.
By: King, P. J.
Baldwin, J. and
Gormley, J. concur.