Opinion ID: 2135198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Petition to Intervene.

Text: The guardian first claims that the petition to intervene was untimely. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 75 states: Any person interested in the subject matter of the litigation, or the success of either party to the action, or against both parties, may intervene at any time before trial begins, by joining with plaintiff or defendant or claiming adversely to both. The guardian argues that the petition was not filed before trial begins because it was filed after the court had ruled on the petition for termination of parental rights. Our court has never addressed this precise issue, but the court of appeals did in In re C.L.C., 479 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa App.1991). In C.L.C., Mia and Scott Bartels intervened in a termination proceeding so they could seek to be appointed guardians and eventually adopt the children who were the subject of the termination proceeding. They filed their petition of intervention after termination orders had been entered. The court of appeals rejected an argument that the petition was untimely under rule 75. Because we agree with the reasoning of the court, we quote from its decision: The Bartels never desired to intervene on the issue of whether to terminate the parental rights of the children's natural parents. Rather, they seek to be heard on the issue of guardianship and custody of the children. The fact that temporary placement of the child should be done as near as contemporaneously as possible to the time in which the parental rights are terminated does not transform a proceeding to terminate parental rights into a final judgment on the matter of guardianship and custody. We find the complete difference in nature of these issues requires this court to consider the determination of each as two separate proceedings. .... ... The timeliness of the Bartels' petition is therefore measured by the advent of those proceedings to which they have expressed a desire to be heard. We find the Bartels' petition to intervene prior to the proceedings on the permanency plan for these children to be timely. In re C.L.C., 479 N.W.2d at 344-45. The court of appeals' analysis in C.L.C. is sound and we apply it to our case. The grandparents here do not seek to intervene on the issue of termination of parental rights. Rather, they only desire to be heard on the issue of guardianship and custody, a matter over which the court still has jurisdiction. See Iowa Code § 600A.9(2) (1993) ([T]he juvenile court shall retain jurisdiction to change a guardian or custodian....). Because the issue of guardianship and custody has not been finalized, we hold that the petition to intervene was timely.