State ex rel. Roberts v. Reeder

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that grandparent’s concern for their grandchild’s well-being similarly “cannot be construed as a legal interest that falls within the scope of Civ.R. 24(A).”
• holding that the clear-and-convincing standard in R.C. 2151.414 sufficiently protected “the fundamental rights of both parents and children” contained “in both the Ohio and United States Constitutions”
• grandparents “never obtained, through statute, court order, or other means, any legal right to custody or visitation of their grandson.” (Emphasis sic.)
• “Likewise, the [grandparents] had no legal interest in the care and custody of their grandson, which would have Athens App. No. 17CA21 11 allowed them to intervene as of right pursuant to Civ.R. 24(A)”(Emphasis sic.
• “Likewise, the [grandparents] had no legal interest in the care and custody of their grandson, which would have allowed them to intervene [in an adoption proceeding] as of right.... [T]he [grandparents’] ‘claimed interest’ was not legally protectable.”
• grandparents have no right to intervene in a custody proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).