Case Name: Michelle HAUSMANN, as Intermediary on Behalf of John and Jane DOE, Petitioner, v. L.M. and J.M., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-09-05
Citations: 806 So. 2d 511
Docket Number: No. 4D01-1811
Parties: Michelle HAUSMANN, as Intermediary on Behalf of John and Jane DOE, Petitioner, v. L.M. and J.M., Respondents.
Judges: GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 806
Pages: 511–516

Head Matter:
Michelle HAUSMANN, as Intermediary on Behalf of John and Jane DOE, Petitioner, v. L.M. and J.M., Respondents.
No. 4D01-1811.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 5, 2001.
Opinion on Rehearing Nov. 7, 2001.
Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Amy Hickman of Hausmann & Hickman, Boynton Beach, for petitioner.
Jeanne C. Brady of Brady & Brady, P.A., and Steven M. Pesso of Steven M. Pesso, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondents.

Opinion:
WARNER, J.
Petitioner, an adoption intermediary, seeks to quash an order of the circuit court granting grandparents the right to intervene in the adoption proceedings of their daughter's infant. Because the grandparents had filed their own petition for adoption before that of the prospective adoptive parents, had custody of the child for a period of time, and challenged whether the consents given by the child's parents were invalid because of abandonment, we deny the petition.
J.T.M. was born October 1, 2000, to birth mother M.M. and father R.R., who were unmarried. He was hospitalized on January 1, 2001, for medical treatment resulting from the birth mother's neglect. On January 4, 2001, the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") took J.T.M. from his birth mother and placed him with respondents, his maternal grandparents. DCFS then initiated dependency proceedings.
Later in January, the birth mother consented to the adoption of the child through petitioner. The mother then asked the court to place J.T.M. with petitioner for placement with the prospective adoptive parents. On February 6, 2001, the trial court granted the motion and ordered DCFS to remove the child from respondents. The next day, respondents filed a petition to adopt the child, contending that the parents had abandoned him. This case was assigned to Judge Alvarez.
After obtaining the father's consent to the adoption, petitioner, on behalf of the prospective parents, filed a petition for adoption on February 16, 2001, and the dependency proceedings were dismissed. This petition was filed in Judge Carlisle's division. The grandparents moved to intervene in these proceedings based upon their rights as grandparents and their own adoption petition. Judge Carlisle held a hearing on the motion to intervene and granted the same. Petitioner, on behalf of the prospective parents, then filed for review of the order granting intervention in this court. We have certiorari jurisdiction to review this order. See J.L. v. G.M., 687 So.2d 977, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230, which also applies in adoption proceedings, see Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.230, provides:
Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.
The standard of review of an order granting intervention is abuse of discretion. State, Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Rains, 654 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla.1992), the court set forth the test for intervention:
The test to determine what interest entitles a party to intervene is set forth in Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 238-39, 78 So. 14, 15 (1918):
[T]he interest which will entitle a person to intervene . must be in the matter in litigation, and of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. In other words, the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof, or a claim to, or lien upon, the property or some part thereof, which is the subject of litigation.
It then explained a two step analysis: "First, the trial court must determine that the interest asserted is appropriate to support intervention. See Morgareidge. Once the trial court determines that the requisite interest exists, it must exercise its sound discretion to determine whether to permit intervention." Id. at 507.
In this case, the grandparents had filed their own petition for adoption and alleged that the parents had abandoned the child so that their consents to the prospective parents' adoption were invalid. The trial court knew that the abandonment and validity of the consents would be an issue in the prospective parents' petition. Further, even without consolidation of the competing adoption petitions, any final resolution in favor of the prospective parents would directly affect the grandparents' ability to adopt the infant themselves. In its discretion, the trial court granted the intervention, and we find no abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.
We distinguish Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), in which the court affirmed the trial court's denial of a grandparent's request to intervene in a pending adoption proceeding. In that case, the grandmother premised her right to intervene solely on two grounds: (1) her daughter had lived with her during the pregnancy such that the yet unborn child had lived with the grandmother for over six months, giving her statutory priority under section 63.0425(1), Florida Statutes (1999); and (2) her substantive due process right to parent by virtue of her daughter's minority at the time she gave birth. The trial court determined these were insufficient interests on which to assert standing, and the first district affirmed. See Y.H., 784 So.2d at 571-72. In this case, apart from the grandparents' claim of priority, they allege that the child was neglected and abandoned by the parents so that their consents to the adoption were invalid, a claim not made in Y.H. and one which would eliminate any preferred position the prospective parents would have to adopt the child.
Based upon the foregoing, the petition is denied.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.