Interest of A.P., 987 N.W.2d 345

A.P., born 2013, was taken into protective custody in 2018 and placed with foster parents Karena and Keith Jensen in August 2018.
North Star Human Service Zone (North Star) supervised the child and in 2021 planned to transfer A.P. to maternal grandparents in Florida.
The Jensens sought emergency relief in August 2021 to prevent the transfer; the juvenile court issued an emergency protective custody order allowing the child to remain with the Jensens.
In October 2021 the Jensens moved to modify the juvenile permanency order, asking the court to award them care, custody, and control of A.P.; the State opposed the motion.
After hearings, the juvenile court denied the Jensens’ motion and approved the State’s transition plan in a June 24, 2022 order, transferring daily care toward the grandparents.
The Jensens appealed, but the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate standing because the Jensens were not “aggrieved parties” under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26(1) without having been granted party status under the juvenile rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether foster parents (the Jensens) qualify as "aggrieved parties" under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26(1) and therefore have a right to appeal	The Jensens argued their motion to modify the permanency order was sufficient to make them parties and thus aggrieved parties entitled to appeal	The State and court treated foster parents as "persons who may participate" under N.D.R.Juv.P. 4, not "parties" under Rule 3(b); absent intervention as parties, they lack statutory standing to appeal	The Court held foster parents are not "parties" under Rule 3(b) merely by moving for relief; they must be granted party status to be an "aggrieved party" for appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Whether the juvenile rules treat foster parents as parties for motions and appeal purposes	Jensens contended juvenile rules allowed their motion to functionally make them parties for purposes of modification and appeal	The Court relied on the plain distinction in the Rules: Rule 3(b) defines parties; Rule 4 separately lists foster parents as "persons who may participate," and other rules (14, 15, 16) reinforce the distinction	The Court held the Rules unambiguously distinguish parties from interested persons; foster parents must intervene as parties under Rule 3(b) to have appellate standing.

Cossette v. Cass Cnty. Joint Water Res. Dist., 894 N.W.2d 858 (defines "aggrieved party" as having an immediate, direct, adverse legal interest)
Treiber v. Citizens State Bank, 598 N.W.2d 96 (same standing principle for an "aggrieved party")
In re J.K.M., 557 N.W.2d 229 (appeal rights are jurisdictional and may be considered sua sponte)
In re Guardianship of S.M.H., 960 N.W.2d 811 (the right to appeal is statutory; lack of statutory basis deprives appellate jurisdiction)
In re J.D.F., 787 N.W.2d 738 (apply statutory-construction principles when interpreting court rules)
Chapman v. Chapman, 673 N.W.2d 920 (party lacking injury or contractual assignment lacks standing to appeal)