Opinion
No. 5-905 / 05-1706
Filed December 21, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen, District Associate Judge.
Peter M.S. appeals from the order denying his request to intervene. AFFIRMED.
Peter M.S., Rock Island, pro se.
Timothy J. Tupper, Davenport, for appellee-mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-state.
Carrie Coyle of Zamora, Taylor, Alexander, Woods Frederick, Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor child.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Kevin and Cynthia, who do not live together and are not married, are the parents of Marissa. In September of 2005, Marissa was removed from Cynthia's care to protect her from imminent danger. On September 12, Peter S. moved to intervene and requested Marissa's custody, alleging he held a relationship with Marissa and that she wished to be adopted by him. The following day, the State filed a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceeding. On September 14, the court transferred Marissa's legal custody to the Iowa Department of Human Services.
Both the State and Cynthia resisted Peter's motion to intervene. Following a hearing on the petition, the juvenile court denied Peter's motion. It stated:
The court finds that Peter S. is a person having a subjective interest in the child by virtue of his past relationship with the family and with the child. He is not a licensed foster parent for the child and he is not related to the child by blood or marriage. He does not have the requisite legal interest enabling him to intervene. The Court, therefore, concludes that his Application should be denied.
The court later denied Peter's motion to reconsider. Peter appeals.
Cynthia claims Peter did not file a timely notice of appeal. We choose to pass on this issue and instead rule on the merits.
Our review of a denial of intervention is on error. In re B.B.M., 514 N.W.2d 425, 426 (Iowa 1994). The trial court is accorded a certain amount of discretion to deny intervention in proper cases. Id.
Intervention is governed by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407. One may intervene as a matter of right if a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the individual claims an interest relating to the "property or transaction" which is the subject of the action. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(1). One may permissively intervene if a statute confers a conditional right to intervene or if the individual's claim or defense has a common question of fact or law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.407(2). No statute or rule requires or permits intervention in this case. Nor does Peter bring to our attention any judicial precedent authorizing intervention in similar circumstances.
In Petition of Ash our supreme court addressed the role of a non-related adult in the context of a juvenile court proceeding:
He is an interested third party. He is not the child's biological father. He is not her adoptive father. He is not her stepfather. He is not her foster parent. He never married the child's mother. He is merely a man who lived with — and cared for — her mother, and who, understandably, became smitten with fatherhood after the child's birth.
Petition of Ash, 507 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Iowa 1993). Similar reasoning applies here. In this case, Peter is not related to Marissa by either blood or marriage. He has no biological or legal bond to Marissa and has no legal standing to intervene in her CINA proceedings. We affirm the ruling of the juvenile court.