In Re: C.H.
E2016-00702-COA-R9-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- C.H., born 2010, lived with maternal grandparents J.H. and S.J. from birth in a household that also included the parents; DCS removed the child in November 2014 due in part to parental drug use.
- DCS filed a dependency-and-neglect petition; a juvenile-court hearing occurred in September 2015; DCS later filed a petition (Oct. 2015) to terminate the parents’ rights.
- The grandparents moved to intervene in the termination proceeding, attaching affidavits that they had provided primary care for the child; the trial court denied intervention.
- The trial court granted the grandparents permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9; the Court of Appeals accepted interlocutory review to decide whether the denial of intervention was erroneous.
- The grandparents sought intervention as of right under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.01(2) (claiming an interest in the child) and alternatively sought permissive intervention under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.02(2) (common questions of law/fact).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court: grandparents lacked the legal interest necessary for intervention as of right and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention; the grandparents may still testify, pursue adoption, or seek other remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents may intervene as of right under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.01(2) | Grandparents claim a direct, protectable interest from acting as the child’s primary caretakers in the grandparents’ home, so disposition may impair their interest | DCS argues the grandparental interest is too attenuated; parents can adequately represent their interests; grandparents were not guardians/custodians when petition filed | Denied — biological/grandparent relationship and custodial role alone do not establish the requisite direct legal interest for intervention as of right; mother would adequately represent their interest |
| Whether permissive intervention under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.02(2) is appropriate | Grandparents assert common questions (child’s future/best interest) and wish to pursue visitation or custody | DCS argues intervention would unduly broaden the termination proceeding and is unnecessary because relief sought (visitation/custody) is not proper in termination proceedings | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; intervention improper where intervenor seeks to raise new claims (visitation/custody) in a termination action whose purpose is severance of parental rights |
| Whether statutory grandparent-visitation standards (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-306) create an intervention interest | Grandparents point to the statute’s recognition of a “significant existing relationship” to show a protectable interest | DCS contends that the visitation statute applies only to that statute and does not confer intervention rights in termination proceedings | Denied — visitation statute applies only for its own purposes and does not create intervention standing in termination proceedings |
| Whether grandparents qualify as "prospective adoptive parents" with standing to file termination or adoption petitions | Grandparents argue they intend to pursue custody/placement if termination occurs | DCS notes grandparents have not applied for adoption approval, lack physical custody or lawful capacity to file for adoption, and thus do not meet the statute’s definition | Denied — grandparents did not meet the statutory definition of prospective adoptive parents and therefore lack standing to file termination/adoption petitions at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State Dept. of Children’s Servs., 136 S.W.3d 613 (Tenn. 2004) (grandparental status alone does not confer intervention rights in termination proceedings)
- State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 18 S.W.3d 186 (Tenn. 2000) (describing the interest standard for intervention)
- Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (discretionary/intervention standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Shelby Cty. Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Gilless, 972 S.W.2d 683 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (discussing intervention and Rule 24)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (termination’s sole purpose is severing the legal relationship between parents and children)