Maria S., Feliciano R. v. Dcs
1 CA-JV 17-0105
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Maternal grandparents (Maria S. and Feliciano R.) cared for four special-needs children whose mother (Benita S.) has severe mental-health and cognitive disabilities.
- In late 2013 DCS filed dependency petitions after grandparents left the children with mother; children were placed in licensed DDD foster homes and received specialized services.
- Mother’s parental rights were terminated in May 2016; fathers’ rights were later terminated. Mother’s appeal was dismissed. One child turned 18 and is not part of the appeal.
- Three months after termination, grandparents moved to intervene under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(b) and simultaneously moved to change physical custody, claiming they could meet the children’s needs.
- DCS and the guardian ad litem opposed intervention and placement: DCS had completed home studies and on-site inspections, repeatedly found mother still living in grandparents’ home, and reported that grandparents could not manage or appropriately engage with the children; visits led to worsened behavior and were eventually curtailed.
- The superior court denied intervention (finding intervention would not be in the children’s best interests and likely would prolong the case); the court also denied the custody motion for lack of standing. Grandparents appealed only the denial under Rule 24(b).
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | DCS/GAL Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents should be permitted to intervene under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(b) | Grandparents sought intervention to obtain standing to advocate for placement and contend they can meet children’s needs | Intervention would not serve children’s best interests because grandparents’ home remained unsuitable (mother present), grandparents failed to manage children, visits worsened behavior, and their interests were already represented | Court affirmed denial of intervention — no abuse of discretion; intervention would not be in children’s best interests and could prolong the case |
| Whether grandparents’ interests were inadequately represented by existing parties | Grandparents claimed no party represented their specific visitation/placement interest | Court and opposing parties noted mother’s counsel, GAL, and one child’s attorney had represented related positions; GAL cannot represent grandparents’ interests if adverse to children, but record showed the same legal issues were advanced | Court found grandparents did not advance unique legal issues and representation was adequate for purposes of denying intervention |
| Whether the superior court applied Bechtel factors properly | Grandparents argued the court misapplied Bechtel and focused improperly on placement facts rather than intervention standards | DCS/GAL argued the court applied Bechtel factors, weighing interests, likelihood to contribute to resolution, and potential delay; factual findings supported denial | Court applied Bechtel factors and made individualized findings based on best interests; denial upheld |
| Whether grandparents had standing to appeal denial of custody change | Grandparents tried to change custody but were not parties under juvenile rule | DCS/GAL argued grandparents lacked standing because they were not permitted to intervene | Court limited review to denial of intervention and held grandparents lacked standing to challenge custody denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bechtel v. Rose, 150 Ariz. 68 (Ariz. 1986) (grandparents generally may intervene in dependency absent a showing intervention would harm child’s best interests)
- Allen v. Chon-Lopez, 214 Ariz. 361 (App. 2007) (appellate review of denial to intervene is for abuse of discretion)
- William Z. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 192 Ariz. 385 (App. 1998) (summary denials of intervention can be an abuse of discretion; individualized findings are required)
- Mitchell v. City of Nogales, 83 Ariz. 328 (Ariz. 1958) (Rule 24 should be liberally construed to assist parties in obtaining justice)