court information center

Parties to juvenile proceedings include the juvenile who is subject of the court proceeding, the parents, guardian, and custodian of the juvenile, the juvenile officer, the children’s division (in any case where the division provides services to the juvenile or has legal custody, and any other person denominated by statute as a party in the proceeding. Supreme Court Rule 110.04(a)(20). The term "custodian” means any person having physical custody of a juvenile in the absence of an order of court. Supreme Court Rule 110.04(a)(5). "Juvenile" means a person younger than 21 years of age who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Supreme Court rule 110.04(a)(12). "Parent" includes any presumed father, or a natural parent, legal parent or a parent by adoption whose parental rights have not been terminated. Supreme Court Rule 110.04(a)(19).

Intervention as a matter of right can be adequately pleaded under two theories under Rule 52.12(a). The first is where a "statute of this state" confers an unconditional right to intervene. The second is where the intervenor claims an interest related to the transaction before the court, which is not adequately represented by existing parties.

In Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services v. Juvenile Officer and Missouri Department of Social Services, 10 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), the court held that an advocacy group had no right to intervention because there was no state statute conferring an unconditional right to intervene. In addition, the advocacy group did not have a sufficient interest in the transaction to intervene in the abuse/neglect case.

On the other hand, where intervenors in an adoption case pleaded they were registered members of a federally recognized Indian tribe and the child being adopted was a member of the tribe, intervenors did state adequate grounds for intervention as a matter of right. Federal law grants to intervenors a preference in the adoptive placement of the child because of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). Thus, although a "statute of this state" did not confer an unconditional right to intervene, the court should have granted intervention because intervenors adequately pleaded an interest in the transaction before the court which was not adequately represented by any other party. Matter of C.G.L., 28 S.W.3d 502, 504 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000).

A grandparent is given the right to intervene in custody proceedings by Section 211.177, RSMo: “The statute…creates a rebuttable presumption that a grandparent has a right to intervene, absent evidence it would be against the child's best interest.” In the Interest of L.J.H., 67 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002). See also In Interest of C.M.D., 18 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). A trial court does not commit error by denying a right of intervention to a grandmother in a termination of parental rights proceeding. A termination of parental rights proceeding is not a juvenile custody determination under Section 211.031, RSMo and, therefore, the intervention provisions of Section 211.177, RSMo do not apply to a termination of parental rights case. In Interest of C.M.D., 18 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).

Back to Top ↑