In the Interest of G.E., Minor Child
21-1121
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2021Background
- E.J., the minor’s half‑sister, moved to intervene in child‑in‑need‑of‑assistance (CINA) proceedings concerning G.E.
- The juvenile court denied the motion to intervene; E.J. appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Decision filed November 3, 2021.
- At the combined permanency and termination hearing, E.J. testified about her involvement with G.E.; the juvenile court found her testimony not credible.
- G.E.’s mother testified E.J.’s involvement was minimal (one birthday party, no calls or holiday contact).
- The juvenile court determined E.J. did not demonstrate a sufficiently close relationship to have the required interest to intervene under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing the closeness of relationship is a critical factor and the juvenile court has discretion on whether an intervenor is an "interested" party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E.J. may intervene in the CINA proceedings under rule 1.407 | E.J.: as half‑sister with some involvement, she has sufficient interest to intervene | State/mother: relationship is not close; insufficient interest; juvenile court may deny intervention | Denied — court affirmed that E.J. lacked sufficient, close relationship; juvenile court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2000) (standard of review for intervention and importance of closeness of relationship)
- In re A.G., 558 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1997) (juvenile court discretion in determining whether an intervenor is "interested")
- In re E.G., 738 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (juvenile court has discretion to deny intervention in proper cases)