IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-2141
Filed April 15, 2020
IN THE INTEREST OF E.F.,
Minor Child,
S.W. and R.W., Intervenors,
Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J.
Nelson, District Associate Judge.
Former foster parents appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their motion to
intervene. AFFIRMED.
Amy Garreans of Garreans Law, LLC, Council Bluffs, for appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Norman L. Springer, Jr. of McGinn, Springer & Noethe, PLC, Council Bluffs,
attorney and guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
Former foster parents of a child appeal the juvenile court’s denial of their
motion to intervene in a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) case. We determine
the juvenile court did not err in denying the motion to intervene and affirm.
The child was placed with the foster parents’ (intervenors) family from April
to October 1, 2019. At that time, the intervenors’ foster care license was placed
on hold due to concerns relating to the family’s other children, and the department
of human services (DHS)—which at all times had custody of the child—changed
the child’s placement to a new foster family. Two weeks after the child’s placement
changed, the permanency goal in the CINA case was changed from reunification
to termination of parental rights and adoption. The intervenors wanted to be
considered as a suitable permanent placement for the child and, on December 2,
filed a motion to intervene requesting placement. The juvenile court found “they
do not have a legal interest that would be affected by the outcome of this case and
should not be allowed to intervene herein.” The intervenors appeal.
While we generally review CINA proceedings de novo, when the issue is
one of statutory interpretation we review for correction of errors at law. In re J.C.,
857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014). “Although our review is on error, we accord
some discretion to the district court. The district court exercises this discretion
when determining whether an applicant intervenor is ‘interested’ in the litigation
before the court.” In re H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d 340, 342–43 (Iowa 2000) (citations
omitted).
Iowa Code section 232.91(2) (2019) provides, “An agency, facility,
institution, or person, including a foster parent or an individual providing
3
preadoptive care, may petition the court to be made a party to proceedings under
this division.” This is not an unconditional right for a foster parent to intervene, and
the juvenile court has some discretion to deny intervention. In re E.G., 738 N.W.2d
653, 655 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007); see Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(4) (allowing the court to
grant or deny permissive intervention “as the circumstances require”). The court
considers “whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the rights of the original parties.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(2). The court’s discretion
“is to be exercised on the question of whether an intervenor is ‘interested’ in the
litigation.” In re A.G., 558 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Iowa 1997). “An indirect, speculative,
or remote interest will not provide one a right to intervene. Thus, the mere interest
or desire to adopt a child will not qualify as a sufficient interest.” H.N.B., 619
N.W.2d at 343 (citations omitted).
The juvenile court considered whether the intervenors would be “suitable
persons” for custody under Iowa Code section 232.102(1)(a)(1). While
acknowledging the intervenors cared for and supported the child for six months,
the court also considered the child had been with a new foster family for more than
two months. The intervenors’ fostering license was put on “hold” in October and
remained on hold at the time of the hearing on their motion to intervene. Not only
are the intervenors no longer the child’s foster parents, they are not eligible to
foster the child at this time. See Iowa Code § 237.4 (requiring parties providing
foster care to have a valid foster care license). The juvenile court noted the
intervenors’ potential to be considered ‘suitable’ was “too contingent upon
circumstances outside this litigation.”
4
The only current interest the intervenors have in the litigation is their desire
to adopt the child. Not only is that an insufficient interest on its own, the parents’
rights have not been terminated and the intervenors’ desire to adopt the child is
speculative. See H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d at 343.
We conclude the juvenile court did not err in concluding the intervenors
were not “suitable persons” as contemplated by Iowa Code section
232.102(1)(a)(1). Because they were not “suitable persons,” they did not have the
legal right to intervene in the CINA proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
In the Interest of E.F., Minor Child
Combined Opinion