In the Interest of W.A., C.A., B.A., and H.A., Minor Children, N.A., Grandmother, 17-1178

Parents’ rights to all four children were terminated in Oct. 2016 and that termination was affirmed on appeal; children were placed for adoption or relative care.
Paternal grandmother N.A. moved to intervene in the CINA/TPR proceedings (Jan. 2017) and later sought visitation (May 2017); she withdrew intervention/appeal as to one child (W.A.).
Juvenile court denied N.A.’s motions to intervene and for visitation, finding intervention and visitation would not be in the children’s best interests.
Record concerns included N.A. facilitating unsupervised contact between the children and their father despite DHS prohibitions, reports of alcohol and e-cigarette use during such contact, and a home-study that questioned her boundary-setting and decision-making.
Trial court emphasized the children’s need for permanency (one child ready for adoption; others in need of permanency) and that intervention or visitation could impede that outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to intervene as of right under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(1)(b)	N.A.: as grandmother, she has an interest that may be impaired and is not adequately represented; seeks party status to protect interest	State/DHS: allowing intervention would harm children’s best interests and risk delaying permanency; concerns about N.A.’s conduct	Denied — court refused intervention, concluding intervention would be contrary to children’s best interests and could jeopardize permanency
Motion for grandparent visitation	N.A.: she has an existing relationship; visitation would be in children’s best interests	State/DHS: DHS had grounds to restrict visitation given safety/boundary concerns and prior unauthorized contacts with father	Denied — on de novo review, visitation would be contrary to children’s best interests

In re A.G., 558 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1997) (intervention allowed in CINA/TPR matters; standard for intervention)
In re H.N.B., 619 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 2000) (courts have discretion in assessing intervenor’s interest; welfare of child paramount)
In re E.G., 738 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (reluctance to grant intervention that delays adoption or permanency)
Graves v. Eckman, 550 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (juvenile court’s power over grandparent visitation in CINA proceedings)
In re K.R., 537 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa 1995) (juvenile court may determine and limit grandparent visitation in best interests of child)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (appellate review limits — issues must be preserved in district court)
In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2000) (appellate briefing must identify error with authority)