IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1121

Filed November 3, 2021

IN THE INTEREST OF G.E.,

Minor Child,

E.J., Intervenor,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Monty Franklin, 

District Associate Judge.

A half-sister appeals the denial of her motion to intervene in a child-in-needof-assistance proceeding. AFFIRMED.

Robb D. Goedicke of Neighborhood Law Group of Iowa, P.C., West Des 

Moines, for appellant intervenor.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Michael Maynes of Maynes Law Office, Greenfield, attorney and guardian 

ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2

MAY, Judge.

E.J. appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to intervene in 

the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceedings involving her half-sister, G.E. 

We affirm.

We review the denial of a motion to intervene for legal error. In re H.N.B., 

619 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 2000). However, we afford some discretion to the 

district court. Id. “This discretion is not the ability to deny intervention where the 

prerequisites of [Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.407] have been met. Rather, this 

discretion is to be exercised on the question of whether an intervenor is ‘interested’ 

in the litigation.” In re A.G., 558 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Iowa 1997); see In re E.G., 738 

N.W.2d 653, 655 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (“The juvenile court is accorded a certain 

amount of discretion to deny intervention in proper cases.”). “The closeness of the 

relationship between the child in interest and the intervenor is a critical factor in 

determining the sufficiency of the interest of an intervenor.” In re D.H., No. 09-

1830, 2010 WL 1375179, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2010) (citing H.N.B., 619 

N.W.2d at 344); see also A.G., 558 N.W.2d at 404 (recognizing the juvenile court 

“must consider the degree of the biological connection together with all other 

circumstances in deciding whether the person seeking to intervene is a ‘relative’ 

and therefore, has a sufficient interest under rule [1.407]”).

Here, the juvenile court found E.J. failed to establish a relationship with G.E. 

to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the CINA proceedings. At the hearing on the 

motion to intervene, E.J. testified as to her involvement in G.E.’s life.1 However, 

 

1 The juvenile court considered the motion to intervene at the combined 

permanency and termination hearing.
3

the juvenile court found her testimony was not credible. Conversely, the mother 

testified that E.J. “attended one birthday party, no phone calls, no Merry 

Christmases, no nothing. We went to her kids’ birthday parties, when we were 

invited, and other than that, that’s about the extent” of E.J.’s involvement with G.E. 

Because E.J.’s relationship with G.E. is not a close one, we conclude the juvenile 

court did not err in denying her motion to intervene. See D.H., 2010 WL 1375179, 

at *1 (“Given the limited involvement the maternal aunt and uncle had in the 

children’s lives, we find the court did not err in denying the motion to intervene.”).

AFFIRMED.