Opinion ID: 1207086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the superior court erred in excluding the grandparents from participating in the hearing on the foster parents' adoption petition.

Text: Although the grandparents made no motion to intervene under Civil Rule 24 in the foster parents' adoption hearing, they were nonetheless key participants in placement hearings held in the children-in-need-of-aid proceedings during May-June 1984. As the guardian ad litem states, the trial court recognized [the grandparents'] interest in the action in subsequent proceedings where they did appear (through counsel) as parties and it may have acted in such a fashion as to excuse [the grandparents'] failure to make an actual motion to intervene in the post-consolidation hearing on the foster parents' petition to adopt. At the August 23, 1984 hearing on the grandparents' complaint for injunctive relief, Judge Van Hoomissen consolidated the children's proceeding, the foster parents' adoption action, the grandparents' adoption action and the grandparents' injunction complaint. Thus the grandparents became parties to all of the consolidated proceedings. [11] Subsequently, at the pretrial conference on the adoption hearing, Judge Hodges stated: The Court finds that under the facts of this case, the [foster parents'] adoption should proceed first. If the [foster parents'] adoption is granted, the matter is concluded. I think that covers all of the issues. If the [foster parents'] adoption is not granted, you know, then we're back to  not totally to Square One, but we're back, I suppose, with the grandparents' adoption petition. .... [I]t's the position of the Court that it's a private adoption ... but the State's involved because of the unique circumstances of this case.... [T]he grandparents can be called to testify as witnesses by the State or anybody else, but they may not participate in that adoption proceeding. Since Judge Hodges did not exclude the grandparents from participation as parties until several days before the hearing on the foster parents' adoption action, the grandparents did not have a fair opportunity to file a motion to intervene. [12] The superior court precluded the grandparents' participation as parties in the adoption hearing because it ruled that the foster parents' action was primary. The court based its ruling on the fact that only the foster parents had obtained the requisite consents of the biological parents. [13] Nevertheless, the superior court had already recognized that the grandparents had demonstrated a significant interest in the boys' foster placement and legal status. Therefore, we find that the grandparents should have been allowed to participate as parties. See Civ.R. 24(b). The guardian ad litem, and the foster parents argue that the grandparents' interests were adequately represented by the state. They contend that if the superior court did err in excluding the grandparents, such error was harmless. We disagree. The grandparents argue that they would have presented further evidence of their importance to the boys. Such evidence might have persuaded the superior court that adoption by the foster parents would not be in the boys' best interests, given a strong bond with their grandparents. We therefore conclude that the superior court harmfully erred in excluding the grandparents from participating in the foster parents' adoption hearing. For this reason, the decree of adoption must be vacated. Upon remand, the grandparents are entitled to participate as parties in any further hearings to determine whether the foster parents' adoption petition should be granted.