In re Jewelyette M. — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

The separate opinion agrees that statutes do not categorically prohibit permissive intervention by foster parents but maintains that such intervention should be rare because their interests are usually represented by existing parties and their participation may delay permanency decisions. It disagrees with the view that foster parents ordinarily have a right to remain present throughout child-protection proceedings, concluding that the statutory right to be heard generally permits an oral or written statement at a time determined by the trial court. Justice Elgo, dissenting, would reject permissive intervention altogether, while Justice D’Auria, dissenting, would dismiss the matters as moot because intervening events made further appellate review unnecessary.