E.J., Intervenor, Appellant. v. << (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-11-03No. No. 21-1121

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's denial of E.J.'s motion to intervene, finding that E.J. failed to establish a sufficiently close relationship with the child to demonstrate the requisite interest in the CINA proceedings.

E.J., the half-sister of a child in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding, sought to intervene in the case but the juvenile court denied her motion. On appeal, E.J. challenged this denial. The appellate court examined whether E.J. had established sufficient interest in the case to warrant intervention, which turns on the closeness of her relationship with the child. At the intervention hearing, E.J. testified about her involvement with her half-sister, but the juvenile court found her testimony not credible. The child's mother testified that E.J. had minimal contact with the child—attending only one birthday party and having no regular communication through calls or holiday greetings. Given this limited relationship, the court concluded the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting E.J.'s intervention request.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a half-sister has sufficient interest to intervene in CINA proceedings involving her half-sibling
Credibility of testimony regarding the closeness of family relationships
Standard for determining whether a family member qualifies as 'interested' in intervention under Iowa civil procedure rules

Procedural posture

E.J. appealed the juvenile court's denial of her motion to intervene in CINA proceedings involving her half-sister.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

E.J. appeals from the juvenile courts denial of her motion to intervene in the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings involving her half-sister, G.E. We affirm.

We review the denial of a motion to intervene for legal error. In re H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 2000). However, we afford some discretion to the district court. Id. “This discretion is not the ability to deny intervention where the prerequisites of [Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407] have been met. Rather, this 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); see In re E.G., 738 N.W.2d 653, 655 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (“The juvenile court is accorded a certain amount of discretion to deny intervention in proper cases.”). “The closeness of the relationship between the child in interest and the intervenor is a critical factor in determining the sufficiency of the interest of an intervenor.” In re D.H., No. 09-1830, 2010 WL 1375179, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010) (citing H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d at 344); see also A.G., 558 N.W.2d at 404 (recognizing the juvenile court “must consider the degree of the biological connection together with all other circumstances in deciding whether the person seeking to intervene is a ‘relative’ and therefore, has a sufficient interest under rule [1.407]”).

Here, the juvenile court found E.J. failed to establish a relationship with G.E. to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the CINA proceedings. At the hearing on the motion to intervene, E.J. testified as to her involvement in G.E.’s life.

However, the juvenile court found her testimony was not credible. Conversely, the mother testified that E.J. “attended one birthday party, no phone calls, no Merry Christmases, no nothing. We went to her kids’ birthday parties, when we were invited, and other than that, thats about the extent” of E.J.’s involvement with G.E. Because E.J.’s relationship with G.E. is not a close one, we conclude the juvenile court did not err in denying her motion to intervene. See D.H., 2010 WL 1375179, at *1 (“Given the limited involvement the maternal aunt and uncle had in the childrens lives, we find the court did not err in denying the motion to intervene.”).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The juvenile court considered the motion to intervene at the combined permanency and termination hearing.

MAY, Judge.