AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Two days after the birth of twin sons to Mother and Father, the Children, Youth, and Families Department (the Department) received a referral alleging physical neglect of the children. The Department took custody of the children in August 2018, following which a petition alleging abuse and neglect was filed. The parents did not identify any family members who could assist or serve as a safety monitor for the children. Despite the parents' denial of the allegations, they did not contest the Department's continued custody of the children pending trial. The Department's efforts to identify and assess relatives for placement included a failed attempt to involve the children's grandparents and later, the Aunt, who expressed interest in adopting the children but had no existing relationship with them and had not been in contact with them for the past year.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Aunt): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to intervene, violated her procedural due process rights, and failed to rule on her requests for visitation, a stay of adoption proceedings, and sanctions against the Department.
• Appellee (Department): Opposed the motion on the basis that the children had bonded with their foster parents, and the Aunt had no previous relationship with the children.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Aunt's motion to intervene.
• Whether the Aunt's procedural due process rights were violated by the denial of her motion to intervene.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to address the Aunt's requests for visitation, a stay of adoption proceedings, and sanctions against the Department.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Aunt's motion to intervene was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Medina, J., with Ives, J., and Wray, J., concurring, held that the Aunt was given the procedural due process she was owed when she filed her motion to intervene, as she was given notice of the issues to be determined and an opportunity to be heard. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion to intervene, noting that the Aunt did not move to intervene until after the children had been in the Department's custody for nearly two years and had no existing relationship with the children. The court also concluded that the Aunt lacked standing to appeal the district court's decision not to rule on her requests for visitation, stay of adoption, and sanctions, as she was not granted status as an intervenor and did not have a legally protected interest (paras 21-39).