27 N.E.3d 842
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- B.V.G., born 1993, is an adult with intellectual disability and other impairments; her father obtained sole custody while she was a minor and was later appointed temporary guardian after she reached majority.
- The father allowed limited, supervised contact with the mother and a nominal email exchange between B.V.G. and her maternal grandfather, but the grandfather alleges the father blocked meaningful contact.
- In April 2013 the grandfather moved to intervene in the ongoing guardianship proceeding seeking limits on the father's ability to deny contact (he did not contest the need for a guardian or oppose the father’s appointment).
- The Probate judge denied intervention, concluding the grandfather lacked standing under G. L. c. 190B § 5-306(c) because he had no financial or property interest, and also expressed concern about parental-authority implications.
- On appeal the Appeals Court affirmed: it held the grandfather qualifies as an “interested person” under the MUPC in guardianship contexts but upheld denial of intervention because B.V.G.’s interests were adequately represented by appointed counsel (and a GAL), so intervention was properly denied in the judge’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑financial relative (grandfather) is an “interested person” under MUPC § 5‑306(c) and thus may seek limits on a guardian’s powers | Grandfather: the statutory term "interested person" in guardianship context includes those interested in the ward’s welfare, not only those with property/financial stakes | Father: "interested person" should be read to require a financial/property interest; otherwise strangers could intervene | Held: "Interested person" is not limited to financial interests in guardianship proceedings; the term must be read in context and includes persons interested in the incapacitated person’s welfare. |
| Whether the judge erred in denying intervention as of right under Mass.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) | Grandfather: intervention as of right is warranted because disposition may impair his ability to protect his interest in contact with B.V.G. | Father: grandfather lacks standing and, practically, father’s authority should control; existing representation is adequate | Held: No reversible error. Even assuming standing, the judge did not clearly err in finding B.V.G.’s counsel (and the appointment of a GAL) adequately represented her interests; denial of intervention was within discretion. |
| Whether permissive intervention under Mass.R.Civ.P. 24(b) should be allowed | Grandfather: alternatively asked for permissive intervention to seek limits on guardianship | Father: permissive intervention unnecessary and disruptive; existing representation sufficient | Held: The court’s reasoning on adequate representation supports denial of permissive intervention as well. |
| Whether the trial judge’s reliance on parental‑autonomy principles (Troxel) was controlling | Father: parental autonomy supports limiting third‑party involvement | Grandfather: Troxel not controlling because ward is an adult; primary concern is ward’s welfare | Held: Troxel‘s parental‑autonomy framework is inapposite to an adult guardianship; judge’s constitutional concern did not change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardiner v. Jardine, 245 Mass. 274 (1923) (person "in interest" may include those motivated by humanitarian concern, not only pecuniary interest)
- Rotondi v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 463 Mass. 644 (2012) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 10 (2002) (use of non‑evidentiary hearing representations when appropriate)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental‑autonomy principles)
- Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450 (1993) (sanctions for frivolous appeals)
- First Eastern Bank, N.A. v. Jones, 413 Mass. 654 (1992) (relying on UPC comments for statutory interpretation)