In re N.W.
2013 ME 64
| Me. | 2013Background
- DHHS filed a child protection petition for N.W. in June 2010; a preliminary protection order removed N.W. from her mother and placed custody with DHHS.
- N.W. was placed with Ruth James (maternal great-aunt) in December 2010 and remained with her for nearly two years.
- Parents’ rights were terminated in March 2012; by June 2012 DHHS’s permanency plan was that James would adopt N.W.
- By fall 2012 concerns arose about James’s suitability (domestic discord, failure to obtain foster license, not filing for adoption, unstable housing/finances); DHHS removed N.W. from James’s home on November 17, 2012.
- James moved to intervene under M.R. Civ. P. 24 and sought placement; the court denied intervention and placement without a hearing, concluding intervention would delay permanency and conflict with the Act’s purposes.
- James appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed denial of intervention for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permissive intervention under M.R. Civ. P. 24(b) should be allowed | Intervention was timely, James had strong bond and had complied with permanency plan, and delay would not prejudice parties | Intervention at this late stage would unduly delay permanency and prejudice child and DHHS interests | Denied: court did not abuse discretion; intervention would unduly delay permanency |
| Whether intervention is consistent with purposes of 22 M.R.S. § 4003 (protecting children, preserving family integrity, promoting permanency) | Intervention furthers family placement and child’s best interests given James’ long-term care and bond | James’s actions over two years showed failure to establish a permanent legal relationship (no foster license, no adoption filing); intervention would undermine permanency | Denied: James failed to make prima facie showing; intervention inconsistent with § 4003 as it would impede permanency |
| Whether James qualifies as a “relative” entitled to seek placement under 22 M.R.S. § 4005‑E(2) | James argued for placement as a relative/de facto or preadoptive parent | Statutory definition excludes great‑aunt; absent intervenor status she lacks standing to seek placement | Denied: great‑aunt is not a statutorily defined “relative”; lacking intervenor status, she had no standing to request placement |
| Whether trial court erred by denying evidentiary hearing before ruling on intervention | James argued for a hearing to present evidence supporting intervention | Court may in its discretion deny a hearing on such motions; it considered filings and circumstances | No error: trial court acted within discretion in deciding without evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. MaineHealth, 31 A.3d 911 (Me. 2011) (denial of intervention reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Anderson, 953 A.2d 1166 (Me. 2008) (party seeking to intervene must demonstrate standing)
- P.R. Tel. Co. v. Sistema de Retiro de los Empleados del Gobierno y la Judicatura, 637 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2011) (timeliness for intervention judged by prejudice and delay, not fixed timeframes)