Opinion
A20-1644
02-22-2021
In the MATTER OF the WELFARE OF the CHILDREN OF: M.L.S., C.V.R., and P.H., Commissioner of Human Services, Legal Custodian.
Karen V. Bryan, KB Law PLLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota (for appellant B.R.-H.) Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Debra A. Groehler, Sr. Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent Olmsted County Health, Housing and Human Services) Vicki Duncan, Rochester, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)
Karen V. Bryan, KB Law PLLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota (for appellant B.R.-H.)
Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Debra A. Groehler, Sr. Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent Olmsted County Health, Housing and Human Services)
Vicki Duncan, Rochester, Minnesota (guardian ad litem)
Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
SPECIAL TERM OPINION
SEGAL, Chief Judge
In September 2019, respondent Olmsted County Health, Housing and Human Services (the county) petitioned for termination of the parental rights of M.L.S., C.V.R., and P.H. in a case involving three children. In a June 2020 order, the district court terminated the respective parental rights of M.L.S., C.V.R., and P.H., and transferred custody of the children to the commissioner of human services. In the order, the district court determined that the county was "relieved of further relative search efforts as relatives were not and should not be with the children," reasoning that "[t]here have been no relatives that have provided support to the children or family." In October 2020, the county filed correspondence from a social worker for one of the children stating that the county had assessed that it was in the child's "best interest to be adopted by her current foster family" and asking the district court "to rule out" appellant, who is a paternal aunt to the child, as a permanency option for the child. On the same day, the county moved the district court to schedule a hearing to determine an appropriate permanency option for the child.
Appellant moved to intervene in the juvenile-protection proceeding in November 2020. The motion was brought pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Protection Procedure 34.02, which addresses permissive intervention. In a December 15, 2020 order (the December order), the district court denied appellant's motion. The district court noted that the child "experienced significant and chronic abuse, neglect and trauma at the hands of [her] parents and others" and that the child "has stabilized in the foster parents’ care" and, "[b]ecause of the significant and healthy attachment that [the child] has to the foster parents, it would be devastating to her if her care was disrupted by being placed with [appellant] and her husband." The district court also stated that it had not heard from appellant regarding placement of the child until a communication in October 2020 and that, "when contacted in October of 2019 with respect to possible placement of [the child] in [appellant's] home, [appellant] equivocated because of concerns by her husband." The district court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the foster parents so that they could adopt the child.
Appellant filed this appeal, seeking review of the December order denying appellant's motion to intervene. This court questioned whether the December order was an order denying permissive intervention and, if so, whether this appeal should be dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order. The parties filed informal memoranda and the question of whether the order was appealable was considered at a Special Term of this court. An order was issued accepting jurisdiction of the appeal with an opinion to follow. This Special Term opinion is pursuant to that order and is limited to the question of the appealability of the December order.
DECISION
Appellant maintains that the denial of her motion to intervene is appealable because her motion was for intervention as a matter of right under Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01. Appellant argues in the alternative that, even if the December order is an order denying permissive intervention, the appeal is nevertheless proper because the district court's order is a "final appealable order."
As a general rule, an appeal may be taken in civil cases from an order denying intervention as a matter of right, while an order denying permissive intervention (Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.02 ) is generally not appealable. Deal v. Deal (In re State) , 740 N.W.2d 755, 760 (Minn. 2007) ; Norman v. Refsland , 383 N.W.2d 673, 675 (Minn. 1986).
--------
The county concedes that the denial of appellant's motion to intervene is appealable, but as a motion for permissive intervention under rule 34.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure, not as a motion for intervention as of right under the rules of civil procedure. We agree.
This is a juvenile-protection case and, as such, the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure govern the issues of appealability and intervention. See Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1 (appealablility); 34.01 - .04 (intervention) ; see generally , Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 3.01 (stating that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by these rules, the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to juvenile protection matters.").
Appellant brought her motion, and the district court analyzed it, as a motion for intervention under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 34.02, which addresses permissive intervention in juvenile-protection proceedings. And, it is clear that appellant does not fit any of the categories allowed for intervention as a matter of right under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 34.01, which provides for intervention by parents or grandparents, but not aunts. We thus reject appellant's argument that her motion was for intervention as a matter of right and turn to the question of whether the denial of a motion for permissive intervention is appealable under the circumstances of this case. The juvenile-protection-procedure rules provide that an appeal may be taken "from a final order of the juvenile court affecting a substantial right of the aggrieved person." Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1. Here, the district court denied appellant's motion to intervene and directed that the child's adoption by the foster parents "be finalized as soon as possible as it is in [the child's] best interest." The impact of the district court's order denying appellant's motion to intervene was to effectively bar appellant from being considered as an adoptive placement for the child. As acknowledged by the county, the denial is thus a "final order" affecting a "substantial right" within the meaning of Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1.
We therefore conclude that the December order is appealable under Minn. R. Juv. Prot. P. 23.02, subd. 1. This ruling is limited to the question of appealability and we express no opinion on the merits of the appeal.