NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

MARIA S., FELICIANO R.

, Appellant s ,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, N.J., A.J., C.J.

, Appellee s

.

No. 1 CA

- JV 17

- 0105

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. J D527290

The Honorable Janice K. Crawford

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Jeffrey M. Zurbriggen

, P

. C

. , Phoenix By Jeffrey M. Zurbriggen Counsel for Appellant s

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

, Mesa By Ashlee N. Hoffman n C ounsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety FILED 9-28-2017MARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

C R U Z

, Judge:

¶1 Maria S

. and Feliciano R

. ( collectively “ Grandparents”) appeal from the superior court’s de nial of their motion to intervene and motion to change physical custody

. Because Grandparents have not shown

the superior court abused its discretion , we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Grandparents are the maternal grandparents of N. J

. , born in
2003, A.J.

, born in 2005, C.J.

, born in 2009, and D.S.

, born in 1998 1 (collectively the “Children”). The Children’s mother

, Benita S. (“ Mother ”)

, suffers from severe mental

- health issues and cognitive disabi lities that

p revent her from caring for the C hildren. Additionally, the Children all have special needs of their own.

¶3 Because of Mother’s own disabilities, she and the Children lived with Grandparents. When Grandparents took an extended trip to

Mexico in late 2013, leaving the Children in Mother’s care, t he Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) filed a dependency petition, alleging the Children were dependent as to M other because she was unable to safely care for them

or herself

. Once removed from Mother’s care , the Children were placed in foster homes licensed by the Division of Developmental Disabilities (“DDD”) and began to receive specialized services

.

¶4 After the superior court found the Children depend ent as to Mother in August 2014

, DCS a ttempted to reunify the Children with

Mother , providing her with an array of reunification services. In March 2015, DCS completed its first home study for Grandparents but a potential

return of the Children was denied because M other continued to live in t he

home and exhibited violent tendencies . Additionally, Gr andparents were

1 D.S. turned eighteen in December 2016 and is not a party to this appeal.MARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3 reportedly unable to understand safety risks and the C hildren ’ s special

needs. DCS unsuccessfully attempted to place the Children with other

relatives

.

¶5 Following a petition to seve r the parental relationship and an evidentiary hearing, t he superior court terminated Mother’s parental rights in May 2016 and the Children’s fathers’ rights in August 2016. 2 This C ourt
dismissed M other’s appeal on July 8, 2016, pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 106(G)(1).

¶6 On August 17

, 2016

– three months after Mother’s parenta l rights had been terminated

– Grandparents filed a motion to intervene under

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 24(a) and/or (b). 3 That same day, Grandparents also filed a motion to change physical custody and visitation

, requesting the Children be placed with them. Grandparents’ motion s asserted they could address the Children ’ s disabilities because they had

addressed Mother’ s sim ilar disabilities

. Grandparents sought to intervene in order to gain standing in the case so they could advocate for the C hildren

and be considered as a permanent placement.

¶7 DCS and the Children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) objected to Grandparents’ motion s, based on lack of standing and the best interests

of the C hildren. They pointed out that, d uring the course of th e case, DCS had performed a home stud y and on

- site inspection of Grandparents’

home , had continually assessed Grandparents for placement

, and although Grandparents discussed finding an alternate living arrangement for Mother, Grandparents took no action to remedy the problems DCS had

identified

. Further, DCS and the GAL argued that Grandparents were consistently unable to understand or deal with the Children’s disabilities

and medical needs

, and unable to interact or otherwise eff ectively control

the Children.

¶8 Following a November 11, 2016 oral argument on Grandparents’ motion to intervene , the superior court set an evidentiary hearing

. Jus t p rior to the evidentiary hearing, DCS performed a home

2 The fathers of N.J., C.J., and A.J. are believed to reside in Mexico, have had no contact with the Children, and are not parties to this appeal.

3 Grandparents appeal the denial of the motion to intervene under Rule 24(b), and we therefore do not consider Rule 24(a ) on appeal

.MARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

4 study for Gr andparents, and it was denied because Mother was still residing in the home.

¶9 After taking the matter under advisement, t he superior court denied Grandparents’ motion s to intervene and for change of physical custody , finding that allowing Grandparents to intervene would be contrary to the Children’s best interests. In fact, the court voiced its “very serious concerns as to whether permitting intervention would provide the Grandparents with information that would be contrary to the [C] hildren’s

best interest [s] .” This timely appeal followed.

¶10 The Court has jurisdiction pursuan t to Arizona Revised

Statutes sections 8

- 235(A), 12

- 120.21(A)(1), and 12

- 2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Grandparents sought permission to intervene pursuant to

Rule 24 (b)

, which provides that the court may, upon timely motion, permit intervention by one who “has a conditional right to intervene under a

statute” or who “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)

. Rule 24 “is remedial and should be liberally construed with the view of assisting parties in obtaining justice and protecting their rights

. . . . ” Mitchell v. City of Nogale s , 83 Ariz. 328, 333 (1958).

¶12 Grandparents were not parties to t he Children’ s dependency and severance proceedings , however, t hat is not to say they lacked an interest in the proceedings. “ G randparents are among those people eligible

to become guardian of a child found to be dependent” and, as such, a child ’ s grandparents “should be allowed to intervene in the dependency process unless a specific showing is made that the best interest of the child would

not be served thereby.” Bechtel v. Rose , 150 Ariz. 6 8, 73 (1986) ; see also A riz

. R ev

. S tat . § 8

- 514(B).

¶13 We review the superior court ’ s denial of Grandparents’

motion to intervene for an abuse of discretion. See Allen v. Chon

- Lopez , 214
Ariz. 361, 364, ¶ 9 (App. 2007)

.MARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

5 ¶14 Bechtel outlined several relevant factors which the court should consider prior to determining whether a grandparent should be allowed to intervene in a dependency matter. 150 Ariz. at 7 2

. 4

¶15 On appeal, Grandparents argue the court failed to properly apply the Bechtel factors for intervention and cite Chon

- Lopez for the proposition that the superior court inappropriately analyzed placement issues instead of gro unds for granting intervention. In concluding that Grandparents’ intervention was not in the best interest s o f the Children , the

court cited the occasion in 2013 in which Grandparents, who were the primary caregivers of the Children, left the Children with Mother knowing, or having reason to know, that Mother was not an appropriate caregiver due to her mental cap abilities. Although G randparents underwent a home

stud y in hopes of becoming a suitable placement for the Children, Mother, who is dependent on Grandparents, was still resid ing in the hom e. On that
basis, DCS and the Children ’ s GAL opposed Grandparents’ request to serve as placement. The court further concluded “[i]ntervention is likely to result in prolonging the case.”

¶16 The court was aware DCS had assessed Grandparents as a potential placement and offered Grandparents opportunitie s to visit with

the Children in their home with Mother. During those visits, Grandparents

4 Those factors are:

[T]he nature and extent of the intervenors ’ interest, their standing to raise relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the

case. The court may also consider whether changes have occur red in the litigation so that

intervention that was once denied should be
reexamined, whether the intervenors ’ interests are adequately represented by other parties, whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and whether parties seek ing intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.

Id.MARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

6 were unable to appropriately manage the Children , and the Children exhibited negative behaviors during and after the visits. The court heard testimony that DCS move d the visits to DCS offices but the Children’s behaviors remained unchanged, as did Grandparents’ response. The DCS case manager and DDD supervisor testified that the grandmother failed to implement any skills she had been taught to manage the Children’s

behaviors and that in stead, did not engage with the C hildren. In fact, the record shows that by March 2016, visitation with the grandmother was terminated because she did not follow DCS guidelines and caused the Children to become even more disruptive. I n the presence of the grandmother, the Children’s behavior was frequently uncontrollable and violent, and over an extended period of time, attempts to educate the grandmother did not improve the Children’s behaviors. When visitation stopped, the Children’ s behavior improved for the first time.

¶17 This case is dissimilar to Bechtel where the court found a “paucity” of a record and “no indication at all as to why the [ G randparent’s]

motion was denied.” 150 Ariz. at 72. Here, the court did not “summarily” deny intervention, but rather made an “individualized determination”

based on the best interests as required by Bechtel

. See William Z. v. A riz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. , 192 Ariz. 385, 389, ¶ 21 (App. 1998) (a summary denia l of

intervention is an abuse of discretion).

¶18 Grandparents argue their interests with regard to visitation and placement were not represented by any party to the case but

, in fact,

Mother’s counsel

, the GAL , and one child ’s attorney did do so throughout the dependency case

. The superior court found Grandparents did not advance a legal position or offer any relevant legal issues not already presented by a party in the case

, notwithstanding the fact that the GAL could not, in the Children’s best interest s , represent Grandparents’

interests. Further, the court found that to allow the intervent ion would prolong the case.

¶19 Given the extensive record

, including the Children ’ s interactions with Grandparents , the Children’s extensive history and continuing need for specialized care

, and the need for permanency, Grandpar ents have not shown the superior court abused its discretion in denying their motion to intervene.

¶20 We address only the superior court’s denial of Grandparents’ motion to intervene. Grandparents were not permitted to i ntervene and were not otherwise parties pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 37(A), and therefore had no right to file a motion to changeMARIA S., FELICIANO R. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

7 physical custody and similarly now lack standing to challenge the superior

court’s denial of s aid motion.

CONCLUSION

¶21 We affirm the superior court’s ruling s

.